Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to business questions, I am sure that the House will want to send our best wishes to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years, during which he clerked the Home Affairs Committee, the Foreign Affairs Committee, the Defence Committee, the Committees on Standards and the Committee of Privileges. Robin was a Clerk of the Committee that approved the building of Portcullis House, and as a Clerk to many Committees since, he has produced many thorough reports. I wish him a long, happy and fulfilling retirement.

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House provide us with the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 4 November includes:

Monday 4 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 5 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 6 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November.

The provisional business for the week commencing 11 November will include:

Monday 11 November—General debate on flood preparedness.

Tuesday 12 November—Remaining stages of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Wednesday 13 November—Debate on a motion to approve the draft Voter Identification (Amendment of List of Specified Documents) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on a motion to approve the draft Environmental Protection (Single-use Vapes) (England) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on motions to approve the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) Order 2024, the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 2) Order 2024, and the draft Export and Investment Guarantees (Limit on Exports and Insurance Commitments) (No. 3) Order 2024.

Thursday 14 November—Second Reading of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords].

Friday 15 November—The House will not be sitting.

[Chris Philp]

Mr Speaker, I echo your thanks and congratulations to Robin James, who retires today after 40 years of service. In this House, we all rely on the service of the Clerks, and I know that we are all extremely grateful to Robin for the work that he has done over four decades. I am sure that the whole House will also want to send our thoughts, prayers and best wishes to those affected by the terrible floods currently happening in Spain. Some British citizens are affected as well.

It is good that we will have such ample time to debate the Budget, because it raises some extremely serious issues. On 29 July, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that there was a £22 billion black hole. That claim has been repeated by Labour Ministers subsequently as a pretext for the tax rises that they planned all along. The Chancellor asked the Office for Budget Responsibility to produce a report into this matter, which was published yesterday. It is called the “Review of the March 2024 forecast for departmental expenditure limits”—a snappy title. I have read that report, as I am sure others have, and nowhere does it mention £22 billion. That number is not there at all. In fact, the only reference to a number is found on page 2 and in table 1. Even the Treasury, straining every sinew, could only find numbers that added up to £9.5 billion, and even there the OBR says that

“it is not possible to judge how much of the £9.5 billion”

might actually have been realised. When the Chancellor said that there was a £22 billion black hole, yesterday’s OBR report now proves that that was simply untrue. Will she come here and apologise for providing that number to the House, given that the OBR report shows that it was simply not true, and certainly does not justify £40 billion-worth of tax rises—the largest tax rises in any Budget in history?

Let me turn to election promises and trust in politics, because when we make promises to the public, it is important that we keep them. [Laughter.] I do not know why you are laughing, because these are your promises. The Labour party said that its plans did not require any extra tax rises. Yesterday, the Government announced £40 billion-worth of extra tax rises. They said that there would be no increase in national insurance, but yesterday they announced a £25 billion increase in national insurance.

Let me turn now to their final fig leaf: working people. Apparently, working people would not be affected. In the last couple of hours the Chancellor herself, on the BBC, has admitted what we all knew all along: that working people would be affected, as a result of lower wages. In fact, we can quantify that, thanks to the OBR’s analysis—I am now quite a fan of the OBR. It published yesterday its “Economic and fiscal outlook”. It is 205 pages long, so some Labour Members might not have had a chance to read it all, but I have. On page 54, in paragraph 3.11, it tells us exactly how much of that £25 billion national insurance increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. The OBR says that

“76 per cent of the total”

will result in “lower real wages” for working people. So 76% of that £25 billion increase will fall on the shoulders of working people. That is £19 billion a year lower wages as a result of yesterday’s Budget. That is not me; that is the OBR. So perhaps the Leader of the House would like to apologise to those working people for the £19 billion pay cut she has just handed them.

During the election campaign, Conservative Members warned that Labour’s plans would result in a £2,094 tax increase per working household, and Labour called us liars. I remember being on the radio and the TV, and Labour shadow Ministers at the time—including the Leader of the House, I think—called us liars. We now know the truth: £40 billion a year. That is £2,173 per working household, so about £100 more than we warned. Perhaps she can apologise for that as well.

We also warned that the tax burden would increase to 37.4% of GDP. The OBR says that it will be 38% of GDP—higher even than we warned when Labour called us liars. That is the highest tax burden ever in our country’s history. So the Government were elected on a false prospectus. The OBR has now told us that will result in lower growth by the end of the forecast period and higher inflation. The truth has finally come out: the Government are going to tax more, they are going to borrow more, and they are going to spend more, and now we know who will pay: working people, to the tune of £19 billion a year.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say to the shadow Leader of the House that he said “you”? I am definitely not responsible for this Budget—I want to make that very clear.

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 28 October includes:

Monday 28 October—General debate on remembrance and the contribution of veterans.

Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Great British Energy Bill.

Wednesday 30 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.

Thursday 31 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 1 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include:

Monday 4 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 5 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 6 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November.

[Chris Philp]

It is rather telling that only one Government Member appears to be excited about the prospect of the Budget next week. They obviously know what is coming.

Let me start by congratulating Morgan Edwards on his appointment as director of customer experience and service delivery here in Parliament. He starts his role in December. Apparently he was previously employed at Legoland in Windsor. Quite why the parliamentary authorities thought someone with experience of presiding over squabbling juveniles was well suited to working here, I really do not know.

I have to say that the business has been a little thin in recent weeks. We have a general debate today and a general debate on Monday—we have had no fewer than 10 days of general debate so far. Yesterday, we had regulations that would ordinarily be taken in Committee, and business ended early on Tuesday. We expect that at the end of a Government’s time in office, but it is a little early for this Government to be running out of steam.

At this point in the 2019 Parliament, we had had 31 new Bills introduced; we currently have only 18, a third of which had been published or consulted upon previously, and those Bills that are coming forward are being rushed. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading on Monday, has much of its policy deferred into regulations, to be debated in Committee at some point in the future, denying the full House the opportunity to properly debate those important issues.

When it comes to the winter fuel payment regulations, which we discussed previously, we should have had the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee before we debated and voted on that important measure. The committee has now finally written its report, and it says that it is concerned about the take-up of pension credit, that the Government’s forecasts of fiscal savings have question marks hanging over them and that we need a full impact assessment, which the Government did not bother providing. The committee has also called for specific changes to the regulations. Will the Leader of the House bring the regulations back to the House for us to consider again now that we have the committee’s report and it has recommended changes?

I believe that the Prime Minister is in Samoa attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit. Will the Leader of the House confirm that he will make a statement upon his return next week? I understand that one of the topics under discussion is the question of reparations. My view is that it is totally wrong to be demanding money, amounting to as much as £18 trillion, for sins—very serious sins—committed hundreds of years ago. Will the Leader of the House confirm that it is her view and the Government’s that it is totally wrong to entertain discussions about reparations in relation to things that happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago? I believe that is the Government’s position, and I believe the Prime Minister has ruled out even entering into discussions on that topic, quite rightly. Will she confirm that that remains the position of His Majesty’s Government?

Finally, I ask the Leader of the House to organise a debate on foreign interference in elections—an important topic that concerns us all, and something that Members on both sides of the House have criticised. I understand that more than 100 Labour party staffers are enjoying themselves in the United States in the presidential election that is under way. Ministers have claimed that this is all spontaneous and has all been organised and paid for by the staffers themselves, but that claim appears, to put it politely, grossly implausible now that it has emerged in a now-deleted social media post that the whole thing was arranged by the Labour party’s director of operations, Sofia Patel. She wrote in that deleted post that there were “10 spots available” for campaigning in the swing state of North Carolina, and she said,

“we will sort your housing”.

It looks to me as though that is being organised by the Labour party’s director of operations.

Does the Leader of the House agree that it is damaging to our national interest—this is a serious point—if the governing party, the Labour party, is organising interference or campaigning in another country’s election? [Interruption.] Does she agree that it will make it difficult for His Majesty’s Government to deal with the newly elected Administration in America if the other side wins, and that that will undermine our national interest? Does she accept that by engaging in organised campaigning in this way, Labour is putting party interest before national interest, and will she organise that debate? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, I do not need further comments. I am sure Members are trying to catch my eye, but that is not the best way to do it.

Voting by Proxy

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Once again, I find myself in agreement with the Leader of the House on the substance of this issue. Perhaps it will become a habit; I do not know.

The Opposition support the intention behind the motion. Clearly, if a Member of Parliament has a serious long-term illness or injury, it is reasonable that that Member can still exercise his or her vote even if absent. However, I should like to know how the threshold will be defined. Who decides whether a particular Member has or has not met the threshold, and what sort of evidence will be required? Might it be, for instance, a doctor’s certificate? That may be the kind of question that the Procedure Committee will answer.

I should be interested to know the thoughts of the Leader of the House on those specific practical questions, but in principle we support this change.

Independent Expert Panel

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

I will not detain the House long, Members will be delighted and relieved to hear—I can see that is a popular position. I simply echo the sentiments that the Leader of the House expressed. The Independent Expert Panel obviously plays an extremely important role in scrutinising allegations of misconduct, and it is right that there is an independent mechanism to do that, free from political interference.

I add my thanks to the thanks that the Leader of the House has expressed already to the outgoing members, and in particular to Sir Stephen, the inaugural Chair of the IEP. I add my commendation for the newly nominated members. As the Leader of the House has said, Sir Adrian Fulford is an extremely distinguished, very senior member of the judiciary, and the other three members being appointed have extremely impressive professional and legal backgrounds as well.

I particularly add my endorsement to Wendy Williams, who I worked with at the Home Office when I was Minister of State for Police and Crime and she was one of His Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary and fire & rescue services. She certainly discharged those duties with great effectiveness, as I saw during my time as a Minister in that Department. I am only too pleased to endorse the remarks that the Leader of the House has made.

Question agreed to.

Resolved,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 150C (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Chair and Members) and for a period of 6 years from 25 November 2024:

(1) Sir Adrian Fulford be appointed as Chair of the Independent Expert Panel; and

(2) Lyndsey de Mestre, Andrew Hoyle and Wendy Williams CBE be appointed as members of the Independent Expert Panel.

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 21 October—Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 23 October—Motion to approve the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, followed by a motion to approve the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the independent expert panel.

Thursday 24 October—General debate on Black History Month.

Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 October will include:

Monday 28 October—General debate—subject to be announced.

Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Great British Energy Bill.

Wednesday 30 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.

Thursday 31 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 1 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 November will include:

Monday 4 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 5 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 6 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November.

[Chris Philp]

May I start by paying tribute to Alex Salmond, a substantial figure in our politics and personally always very popular across the House? We will all miss him. We also fondly remember Sir David Amess, whose crest is on the wall opposite me, and who was cruelly murdered three years ago this week. Sir David and his family will remain forever in our thoughts and prayers.

I congratulate colleagues who introduced Bills yesterday. The Bill on terminally ill adults has attracted particular interest. Getting the details right will be critical. If the Bill proceeds, will the Government commit to providing the time needed in Committee and on Report for full debate and votes?

We have just heard that the Budget will be delivered in 13 days’ time. There was not much enthusiasm from Labour Members when the Leader of the House announced that—I cannot imagine why. Labour solemnly pledged in its manifesto that it would not raise national insurance, so raising employer’s NI would break that promise, as well as hitting working people and destroying jobs.

But hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Paul Johnson of the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies said that Labour’s NI plan is “a straightforward breach” of its manifesto commitment. The Federation of Small Businesses said it would be “a clear manifesto breach” and will “hit working people”. UKHospitality said it is “a tax on jobs”. The British Chambers of Commerce said it will

“hobble growth and lead to…less money to invest”

in workers. The Institute of Directors called it

“a poll tax on business”

and said that

“the costs will be borne by workers.”

My final witness is Rachel, from Leeds, who apparently used to work briefly at the Bank of England. In 2021, the Chancellor herself admitted that a rise in employers’ national insurance is, in fact, in her words, a “tax on working people”.

Now, Labour Members could have been honest in the election and made the argument for the increase, but they were not honest; they pretended that they had no intention of increasing NI, to trick people into voting for them. However, this is not just about Labour’s election dishonesty. In a Radio 5 Live phone-in yesterday, I spoke to a man who is closing down his business and leaving the country because of the high taxes and increased regulation proposed by this Government. Another man phoned in to say he was closing down too. This Government are driving businesses to close and making successful people leave the country. Their policies will destroy jobs and reduce the amount of tax collected. I say to them sincerely that there is time in the next 13 days to stop and think again. I appeal directly to Labour Back Benchers, whom the Prime Minister is more likely to listen to than me, to please appeal to their Prime Minister to think again. Otherwise, his personal poll ratings—already minus 36%—are likely to plummet further.

Speaking of the Prime Minister, will the Leader of the House arrange a statement on the special police escort for Taylor Swift? It is reported that the police decided initially that no special escort was needed. Apparently, the Home Secretary, the Attorney General, the Mayor of London and, inevitably, Sue Gray then pressured the police into changing their mind and providing one, violating the police’s operational independence. We now know that among the many freebies that the Prime Minister has eagerly scrounged for himself were tickets and a backstage pass to that very concert. And it was not just him: the Home Secretary, the Science Secretary, the Culture Secretary, the Health Secretary, the Education Secretary, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Minister for School Standards and the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary all had free tickets too. What were they doing? Having a Cabinet meeting at the concert? Does the Leader of the House understand how bad this looks? The Government initially denied that the Met was pressured, which now appears to be untrue. Will the Government finally come clean and tell the truth about exactly what pressure was put on the Met and by whom?

Finally, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on illegal immigration and asylum accommodation? It emerged this week that the Government are seeking even more hotels, at huge expense, to cater for the large number of illegal arrivals. Over 13,000 illegal immigrants have crossed the channel by small boat since the election. The Government must now regret cancelling the Rwanda scheme before it had even started. The deterrent effect would by now have kicked in. We have seen the same approach work in Australia. We have seen the deterrent effect work with returns to Albania. Even the European Commission is now looking at a Rwanda-style scheme. Will the right hon. Lady therefore consider reinstating the scheme, given that the European Commission itself is now looking at it? And why have the Government closed the Bibby Stockholm, leaving them instead frantically renting expensive hotels? The Government are failing on illegal immigration. The country and the House need answers.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Shadow Leader of the House, you get five minutes. Please do not take advantage. If you have good points to make, please make them earlier.

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House update the House on the forthcoming business?

[Mr Speaker]

May I wish the Leader of the House a happy birthday? Forty today!

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

Twenty-one today, Mr Speaker.

The business for the week commencing 14 October includes:

Monday 14 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 15 October—Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 October—General debate on the international investment summit.

Friday 18 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 October will include:

Monday 21 October—Second Reading of the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 23 October—Motion to approve the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024, followed by motion to approve the Iran (Sanctions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

Thursday 24 October—General debate on Black History Month.

Friday 25 October—The House will not be sitting.

Additionally, the House may wish to know that I have tabled a motion under future business confirming the upcoming dates for sitting Fridays. Subject to the agreement of the House, the first sitting Friday to consider private Member’s Bills will be 29 November.

[Chris Philp]

Mr Speaker, may I start by welcoming your new Chaplain, Rev. Mark Birch, to his role? I am sure we all look forward to working with him. Let me also extend warm birthday wishes to the Leader of the House. It is hard to believe, but today is a very significant birthday for her. The whole House extends warm wishes to her and her family. I am sure there will be a lavish party to mark the occasion, but I am genuinely concerned for the right hon. Lady. To keep up with her Cabinet colleagues, she will need, at a minimum, a personal DJ booth and a luxury penthouse to host the party in. I can see from the look on her face that she is a bit concerned about how she will fund all that. Since it is her birthday, I will give her some free advice: she should not follow the example of her Cabinet colleagues and send the bill to Lord Alli. Anyway, I wish her a happy birthday.

I must start today with the shocking failure of the Government to inform this House first about the proposal to give away the strategically vital Chagos islands. The Government should have waited a few days until Parliament was sitting, or waited a few weeks until the Mauritius election was over, and told this House first. They showed total contempt for Parliament. Will the Leader of the House take this opportunity to apologise to the House now and explicitly commit that this will never happen again?

The Chagos proposal is shocking: paying—yes, paying —to give away sovereign territory to a country allied with China, which might be allowed to place military or intelligence assets near the Diego Garcia base; downgrading a sovereign base to merely a leased base, when leases can of course be terminated; and ignoring the Chagos islanders themselves. The Opposition will oppose the plans every step of the way. Will the Leader of the House now expressly confirm to the House that there will be a Bill on these proposals and a CRaG—Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—vote on the treaty itself? Can she tell the House when that will happen?

Members across the House are horrified by the Government’s callous plan to strip winter fuel payments from most pensioners, including 84% of those in poverty. The Government refused to provide the equalities impact assessment in response to a written parliamentary question from one of my colleagues, but just a few days after the vote they slipped out that assessment via a freedom of information request. That denied Members of Parliament the chance to see the impact assessment before voting, presumably because the Government wanted to disguise from their own Back Benchers the fact that over 70% of disabled pensioners will lose their winter fuel payment. The failure to disclose key information to this House appears to me to be a breach of section 1.3(d) of the “Ministerial Code”. First, will the Leader of the House apologise to the House for hiding that information before the critical vote, and will she ask the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests to investigate that as a potential breach of the ministerial code? If she will not, then I will.

The public up and down the country are horrified at the Prime Minister’s insatiable and venal appetite for freebies. He has had more than any other MP in the last five years, totalling over £100,000: designer suits, £1,000 spectacles, pop concerts and stays in an £18 million penthouse, all paid for by Lord Waheed Alli, who was rewarded with a Downing Street pass and influence over appointments. Not a Government of service, but a Government of self-service, feathering its nest courtesy of Lord Alli’s extremely capacious credit card. Is the Leader of the House ashamed that the Prime Minister has been doing that at the same time as stripping pensioners of their winter fuel allowance? He has paid back £6,000 of the £100,000. Can she explain why it is £6,000? Will he be paying back any more?

Finally, this weekend marks 100 days since the formation of the Labour Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I wouldn’t get too excited. It is fair to say that they have been busy: a chief of staff fired; millions of pensioners on low incomes stripped of their winter fuel allowance; inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers and the unions, without any performance improvements in return; and schools in chaos as a result of botched VAT plans that even the trade unions—even the trade unions—say should not be implemented in January. Many successful people, it turns out, are now leaving or planning to leave the country. In the Budget in a few weeks’ time, it appears that tax rises and ballooning borrowing are coming as the debt rules are rewritten, all breaking election promises. Perhaps it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s personal poll ratings have gone down faster than Lord Alli’s bank balance after a shopping trip with the Cabinet. A recent poll showed that the public actually now prefer the last Government to this one. If they carry on like this, it will not just be Sue Gray who is in need of a new job.

[Lucy Powell]

I, too, welcome the new Chaplain, Mark Birch. I also pay tribute to Lily Ebert, who dedicated her life to ensuring that the horror of the Holocaust can never happen again. I am sure that all Members will want to send their best wishes to the residents of Florida as the damage of Hurricane Milton unfolds.

I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House for the birthday wishes. It is a significant birthday for me. Fifty years ago today was also a general election day, and my mum was in labour and voting Labour. I knew even then that I should not come out before the polling station opened. If the House will indulge me slightly, I will take this opportunity to thank my mum and dad, because I would not be here without their life- long support.

Not only was that a big day in the history of my family; it was a rare day in that Labour won a general election. Talking of historic victories, this week marks the first 100 days of our new Labour Government. The work of change has begun. I remind the House that we have made fiscal responsibility an Act, so that Liz Truss can never happen again. We have set up GB Energy, lifted the moratorium on onshore wind, invested in carbon capture and storage, and set up the national wealth fund. We have set ambitious new house building targets, and are ending no-fault of evictions and giving new rights to renters. We are bringing our railways back into public ownership, and providing new powers to stop river pollution. We have ended the doctors’ strike so we can get the waiting lists down, kept our promise to Figen Murray on Martyn’s law, ended one-word Ofsted judgments, set up the border security command, and taken swift action on riots. We are fixing the prisons crisis that the last Government left behind. We are paving the way for better buses across the country. We have tightened the rules on MPs’ second jobs, and we are modernising Parliament and reforming the House of Lords.

And today, 97 days after the election, we are introducing the biggest boost to workers’ rights in a generation, giving people dignity and security at work, not as a nice extra but as an integral part of a strategy for a high-wage, high-skill, growing economy. We have worked apace to deliver a new deal for workers, tackling exploitative zero-hours contracts, ending fire and rehire, and providing day one rights for bereavement, parental leave and statutory sick pay. We are providing flexible working for those who want it, boosting productivity and living standards. This is what Labour Governments deliver. We have produced twice as many Bills in our first 100 days as the Tories did during the same period after the 2010 election. That is our record, and we are proud of it.

The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) asked me about the Chagos islands. We are committed to making statements to the House first when the House is sitting, as is laid down in our “Ministerial Code”. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in his statement to the House on Monday, the requirement for proper parliamentary process and scrutiny will of course be followed. That will include a Bill and the full CRaG process, so I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have ample opportunity to debate the matter further at that time.

I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me about winter fuel payments, because a Sunday Telegraph journalist told me that he had written to me before I had actually received his letter. I know that he likes to come to Parliament to raise these matters first, but he is reaching desperately for a conspiracy when there is none. We granted a vote on the winter fuel payment because we respect Parliament; his party did not. We published the equality analysis, although there was no requirement for us to do so; his party would not have done the same. We have had to make a very difficult decision that we did not want to make in order to fill the £22 billion black hole that his party left behind. [Interruption.] He does not want to hear it, but it is the truth.

The right hon. Gentleman had some brass neck to raise the issue of standards in Parliament. He and his colleagues voted to change the rules of this House when another of his colleagues was found to be in breach of the rules against taking cash for lobbying. His Prime Minister was found to be in serious breach of the rules when he failed to declare a loan he had received for doing up his flat—a loan brokered by someone to whom he then gave the job of chairman of the BBC. And let us not get into the fast-lane, mates- rates covid contracts that cost taxpayers millions of pounds, or, indeed, the fact that his Government changed the rules on socialising while at the same time partying in Downing Street and lying to the House about it for months on end. We will take no lectures from the party opposite.

While we are getting on with changing the country, the Conservatives are soaking themselves in the comfort of the warm bath of opposition. On the day that we are boosting workers’ rights, they are in a race to the bottom on maternity pay. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is time the Conservatives took a cold shower. Yesterday showed that they cannot even count—perhaps they should have stuck with the “king of the spreadsheet” after all. In just 26 parliamentary sitting days, we have delivered more Bills and more change in this country than was achieved in 14 sorry years of Conservative rule.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

I must declare an interest before asking my question: before serving in this place, I am proud to have served as a national officer for Unison, the biggest trade union and, by membership, the biggest organisation for women in the country. As such, I am particularly pleased to see the measures dealing with maternity rights in the Employment Rights Bill presented today. It is estimated that more than 4,000 women who were dismissed last year will benefit from the provisions in the Bill. The Conservative party has pushed through to the final two of its leadership contest—whether or not it intended to do so—a candidate who believes that maternity pay has gone too far.

[Chris Philp]

Not true.

[Mark Ferguson]

Conservative Members may not want to hear it, but it is true. On that point, will we have plenty of time to discuss the important issue of maternity rights as the Bill progresses?

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House provide a statement about forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 7 October is as follows:

Monday 7 October—General debate on Lord Darzi’s independent investigation into NHS performance.

Tuesday 8 October—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.

Wednesday 9 October—Second Reading of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Thursday 10 October—As well as my birthday, a general debate on sport, following the Team GB and ParalympicsGB successes.

Friday 11 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 October will include:

Monday 14 October—Second Reading of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 15 October—Second Reading of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill.

Wednesday 16 October—Opposition day (3rd allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats; subject to be announced.

Thursday 17 October—General debate; subject to be announced.

Friday 18 October—The House will not be sitting.

[Chris Philp]

The business announced for the first week back strikes me as extraordinarily light. There is only a single piece of substantive Government business and half the time will be taken up with general debate. This “Government of service” seem to be taking it pretty easy. In fact, after 70 days, only 13 Bills have been introduced. I looked up the record of the previous Government. I discovered that they introduced 31 new Bills in 100 days following the 2019 election. The right hon. Lady has quite a lot of work to do in the next 30 days, if she is going to catch up with Boris Johnson.

Millions of pensioners are sick with worry following the vote earlier this week to strip them of the winter fuel allowance, including pensioners in poverty. I acknowledge and recognise the 53 courageous Labour MPs who did not support that appalling measure, but the other 350 did vote for it. I join the Leader of the Opposition in urgently calling on the Government to publish the impact assessment.

On 8 July, in a speech to the civil service, the Prime Minister said that his Government would be “open and transparent”. Where is the openness and transparency here? The only impact assessment that we have seen is the Labour party’s own impact assessment suggesting that the policy would cause 3,850 deaths. I call on the Leader of the House to do the decent thing and publish that impact assessment. This is not so much a Government of service as a Government of secrecy.

I also call for an urgent debate on the management of the early release scheme for prisoners. The Justice Secretary came to this House on 25 July and promised us that the “worst violent and sexual” offenders would be “excluded”—I am quoting her words directly. She also promised that domestic abuse offenders would be excluded. I am sorry to say to the House that that is not what has happened. The Napo general secretary, Ian Lawrence, says:

“Members have shared examples where those with both Domestic Violence offences and Sexual Offences have been released”.

He goes on to say that his members—prison officers—

“are extremely disappointed that this has been denied during several media appearances by Government ministers”.

He calls on the Government to correct the record, and I call on the Leader of the House to do so now: to correct the record and correct the inaccurate information that her colleagues have provided to the public.

Some of the examples of those being released early, contrary to the assurances that the Justice Secretary gave to this House, are appalling. Lawson Natty, age 20, who is due for early release, provided the machete that was used to kill 14-year-old Gordon Gault, whose mother describes herself as “sickened” by the early release. Adam Andrews, who is also due for early release, brutally assaulted a 21-day-old baby, leaving that baby blind and paralysed. We were promised that serious violent offenders would not be released early. That promise appears to have been broken. Not a Government of service; a Government of shameful incompetence.

It has been 70 days since the election and it has been a pretty terrible start to government: pensioners in poverty have been stripped of their winter fuel allowance, while there are inflation-busting pay rises for train drivers who already earn £65,000 a year; Labour party donors have been appointed to civil service positions; and there has been the botched release of prisoners, contrary to promises made to this House that violent offenders would not be released early. No wonder the Government’s approval ratings have plummeted at what, as far as I can see, is the fastest rate for any Government in modern times. The rates now stand at minus 36%. But not to worry: the Government do have one new supporter. Mr Djaber Benallaoua says that he will now be “a lifelong Labour voter”. The only problem is that he is a convicted drug dealer who is very happy about his early release. Not so much a Government of service as a Government for their donors, for their trade union paymasters, and for violent criminals who they promised would not be released early, but who they did in fact release.

[Lucy Powell]

May I start by welcoming the news that the Princess of Wales has completed her chemotherapy and is moving on to the next stage of her recovery? Like you, Mr Speaker, I place on the record my thanks to the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Venerable Patricia Hillas, in her final week. We thank her for her contribution to this House.

I congratulate all the newly elected Select Committee Chairs; they play a very important role in this House. I also send my regards to Terry Wiggins, who has served us as a chef for an astonishing 50 years. We all know Terry as the mainstay of the Debate, and I am sure that he will miss serving up the famous House of Commons jerk chicken. I know that he is looking forward to having more time for walking with his dogs. They must be the best-fed dogs in the country.

This week, for the first time in 14 years, a Labour Bill became an Act. The Budget Responsibility Act 2024 ensures that there can never again be a repeat of Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget. It comes as we grapple with the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party—what a stark reminder that is of the importance of economic stability.

The theme this week is the Government honouring their commitment to all those who have been let down. We have published the Renters’ Rights Bill, which will finally end no-fault evictions—a measure long promised but never realised. In order to help unlock town centre regeneration, we have begun reform of outdated compulsory rules—levelling up, remember that? And to the workers of Port Talbot Steel left hanging by the previous Government, the Business and Trade Secretary announced a new deal, welcomed by workers and their representatives.

Today, we introduce the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, otherwise known as Martyn’s law, meeting a promise that the Prime Minister made to Figen Murray, who lost her son Martyn Hett in the Manchester arena attack. I am personally delighted that we are doing this today. This is a Government of service, delivering their manifesto, sticking to their promises and cleaning up the mess left by the Conservative party.

Work began this week on another commitment that we made, with the first meeting of the Modernisation Committee. I thank Members from across the House who have joined and contributed to the process so far, including the shadow Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who is taking his membership very seriously indeed. This morning, the Committee published a memorandum setting out its core principles and early priorities, and I encourage Members from across the House to take a look at that.

We seem to be developing a common theme in these exchanges. The Conservatives lost the election badly because they crashed the economy, made people worse off and did not fix the foundations of this country. The shadow Leader of the House seems to think that we can just carry on as we were, but we saw that movie and it did not end well.

The shadow Leader of the House asks me about the prisons crisis—[Interruption.] Okay, he say it was the management of the prisoner release scheme. Let us just remember that we inherited from the Conservatives prisons on the point of collapse. After the riots, we came within 100 places of our prisons overflowing. If we had not acted, courts would not have been able to hold trials and the police would not have been able to make arrests. Our entire criminal justice system was on the brink of collapse. Police chiefs warned his Government that failing to act before the election would increase the risk considerably, including the risk of serious disorder. What did his Government do? Absolutely nothing. We took the difficult decisions that we had to in order to ensure that our prisons and the whole criminal justice system did not collapse. The previous Government ducked the big issues, as ever; we acted. I will not take any lectures from him about that.

I notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not ask me about the NHS. The damning findings of the Darzi report, out this morning, are another utterly unforgiveable example of the state of public services that we inherited from the Conservative party. The true scale of the crisis in our NHS, experienced by all our constituents, family and friends every day, has been laid bare this morning. Does he want to take the opportunity to apologise for that? No, I did not think he would.

I also notice that the shadow Leader of the House did not repeat the claim that he often makes that the previous Government left us a booming economy. Is that because yesterday’s growth figures confirmed what we all know: that under his party’s watch, we had no growth, falling living standards and a stagnant economy? That is the legacy of his party, and he knows it.

We are fixing the foundations and stabilising the economy. That is why the Conservatives lost and we won. We will not put our heads in the sand. We are keeping our promises—to renters, to steelworkers, and, today, to Figen Murray—and restoring the trust in politics squandered by the Conservative party. This is the change that the country voted for, and the change that we are delivering.

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair and to welcome you to your place?

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 9 September is as follows:

Monday 9 September—Consideration of a motion to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2024, followed by consideration of a motion to approve the Syria (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024, followed by consideration of a motion to approve the draft Renewable Transport Fuel Obligations (Sustainable Aviation Fuel) Order 2024, followed by consideration of a motion to approve the draft Human Medicines (Amendments Relating to Naloxone and Transfers of Functions) Regulations 2024.

Tuesday 10 September—Debate on a motion relating to the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024, followed by Opposition day (1st allotted day, first half). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.

Wednesday 11 September—General debate on building safety and resilience.

Thursday 12 September—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.

The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 September and return on Monday 7 October.

Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the short November recess at the close of business on Wednesday 6 November and return on Monday 11 November; rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025; rise for the February recess at the close of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February; rise for the Easter recess at the close of business on Tuesday 8 April and return on Tuesday 22 April; rise for the early May bank holiday at the close of business on Thursday 1 May and return on Tuesday 6 May; rise for the Whitsun recess at the close of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June; and rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Tuesday 22 July.

[Chris Philp]

A warm welcome back to everyone following the summer recess. I thank the Leader of the House for setting out those recess dates. That will make her popular with everybody across the House. She has just saved me from booking a flight that I would have had to cancel, so I am personally very grateful to her.

I also thank the Leader of the House for confirming a debate on building safety. I know that the whole House sends our heartfelt sympathy to the victims of the Grenfell disaster and their families. I have personally heard harrowing testimony directly from survivors who lost loved ones. What they experienced was truly horrific. We must ensure that it never happens again, and that those responsible, including the cladding manufacturers who lied and covered up evidence, suffer the consequences, including criminal sanctions. Governments must never again ignore safety warnings, as happened over a period of decades.

Like many MPs, I have been contacted by constituents —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) is clearly being contacted by constituents as we speak. My constituents are desperate with worry about Labour’s planned removal of the winter fuel payment from almost all pensioners. I am glad that there will a debate and a vote on that next Tuesday. Labour Back Benchers may be less glad at the prospect of being whipped to vote to remove winter fuel payments from pensioners on less than half the minimum wage. Under the proposals, 84% of pensioners in poverty will lose the winter fuel payment. Is that Labour Members’ idea of a Government of service—leaving pensioners in poverty shivering at wintertime?

Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to explain why he is choosing to fund huge pay rises for train drivers and other state sector workers while slashing benefits for impoverished pensioners. That is not the kind of change that Labour voters thought they would get from a Labour Government, is it? The Prime Minister also refused to say yesterday how much less energy support an 80-year-old on just £13,000 a year would receive this winter, compared with last. Perhaps he does not know the answer. Perhaps he does not care. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the answer is that an 80-year-old on £13,000 a year will receive £600 less energy support this year?

One pensioner wrote to me saying:

“the allowance meant I could turn the heating on. Now I fear hypothermia during the coming winter months”.

No wonder the public oppose this policy by a margin of two to one. Several Labour Members agree, and have already signed a motion condemning it and will, presumably, vote against it. I hope that all decent Labour MPs do the same, but will the Leader of the House confirm whether, if they do, they will lose the Whip, like their rebellious colleagues last July? At this rate, it will not just be pensioners’ heating gone by Christmas; it will be Labour’s majority as well.

I call on the Leader of the House to arrange a debate on ethics and integrity in the Government. The independent civil service commissioner—a former Labour MP—has had to initiate an inquiry into improper appointments by this Government. A “Government of service”? It turns out they mean service to their cronies and donors. It is just wrong to stuff party donors and cronies into what are supposed to be impartial civil service positions. Can Members imagine the howls of protest if the previous Government had done that? [Laughter.] To the civil service? No. The Times reports that the Chancellor did not disclose to her permanent secretary the fact that she had appointed a Labour party donor to a senior civil service position, which would be a breach of the ministerial code. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether The Times report is true?

We have even seen a Labour party donor, Lord Alli, receive a Downing Street pass for no apparent reason—other than being a donor, of course. Who gave him that pass? Was it the Prime Minister, whose clothes Lord Alli apparently pays for? That is extraordinary. Has anyone else here had a donor pay for their clothes? I certainly have not. Or maybe Sue Gray issued the pass, perhaps forgetting to declare that Lord Alli also contributed to her son’s election campaign.

Will the Government now come clean and disclose all the politically affiliated appointments that they have made to the civil service? Will they confirm whether the conflicts were disclosed, as required by the ministerial code? Will they provide a list of all passes to Government buildings issued to anyone other than Ministers, civil servants and special advisers? I strongly suspect that this self-proclaimed Government of service will not admit to any of those things, so later today I will write to the adviser on ministerial interests and the civil service commissioner, asking that they investigate independently these important questions.

A lot has happened this summer—a lot has gone down, as they say—but the main thing that has gone down is the Government’s approval ratings. Just last week, More in Common found that the Prime Minister’s approval ratings have plummeted by 27 percentage points in a matter of a few weeks, plumbing a new low of minus 16%. It turns out that parading around in £16,000-worth of expensive suits paid for by Lord Alli, subverting civil service independence by stuffing the service with cronies and donors, and stripping impoverished pensioners of their benefits is not that popular. Even the Leader of the House will now have to admit the truth: this has been an exceptionally poor start to government.

[Lucy Powell]

I, too, welcome everybody back for the new term. I knew that my announcing the recess dates would be the big news of this morning. I am pleased to be able to help everybody with their family and holiday arrangements.

I thank the House staff who have worked away to ensure that many new colleagues now have their own office in this place; I congratulate our Olympic and Paralympic athletes, who have done our country proud in this golden summer of sport; and I thank the police and the criminal justice system for how quickly they curtailed the thuggery and needless rioting in some of our towns and cities over the summer.

I welcome the publication of the second report of the Grenfell inquiry. The findings are devastating—particularly the statement that the deaths of the 72 victims were completely preventable. Now, justice and accountability will follow. The report raises some profound challenges for building safety regulations and recourse for residents and lease- holders—something with which I am very familiar in my constituency. We have made time for a first debate on building safety next week, and further time will be made available. The Government will come to Parliament with their full response and action plan in due course.

We have had a big first week back, delivering on our packed legislative agenda for change. We have taken our first steps to bring our railways into public ownership and enhance fiscal responsibility—the bedrock of economic stability—to ensure that the Truss mini-Budget can never happen again; the Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill begins the drive to lower bills and increase energy independence; and today we introduce the Water (Special Measures) Bill to clean up our waterways and make water companies accountable, and the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill will begin to honour our commitment to constitutional reform. This is a Government of service, delivering on our manifesto.

As part of the change that people voted for, we have had to clean up the mess left to us by the Conservatives and take the difficult decisions that they ducked. We have a £22 billion black hole that was covered up from the British people and from the spending watchdog. We have full prisons, and that clogs up the criminal justice system. Thankfully, we had already begun to act before we had to take swift action to lock up rioters and thugs over the summer. On the previous Government’s watch, there was an asylum overspend of nearly £7 billion, shoplifting was effectively decriminalised, crippling strikes cost the country dear, and unresolved pay awards sat on Ministers’ desks.

The right hon. Gentleman might want to give us a lecture, but only two years ago, we saw what happens when massive, unfunded spending commitments are made against the advice of Treasury experts and in the face of what is best for our financial institutions: the markets lose all confidence, the price of Government borrowing soars, interest rates hike and inflation gets out of control. That was two years ago under Liz Truss, whom the right hon. Gentleman backed for leader. Nothing damages the real incomes of ordinary people, including pensioners, more than an economy crashing—a crash caused by his Government’s recklessness. Has he learned nothing? That was his party’s approach, but this Government will fix the foundations and restore economic stability.

The legacy that the Conservatives have left us means that we have had to make some really difficult decisions—decisions that we did not want to make, like means-testing the winter fuel payment—but we are doing all we can to support pensioners this winter. We are protecting the triple lock, which means that the state pension will go up by £900 this year—it is likely to rise by several hundred pounds next year—and the warm home discount, which is worth £150. We are also extending the household support fund and have a huge campaign to get eligible pensioners on to pension credit. Yes, we have scheduled a vote on the winter fuel payment next week, because we are not afraid to have the debate about how we got to where we are. That vote would not have happened under the Conservative party, but we respect Parliament and doing things properly.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the pay awards for our hard-working public servants. Those pay awards were sat on the desks of Conservative Ministers, who knew that they would be honoured, but did not allocate the funds for that. Frankly, we will take no lessons on cleaning up politics from the Conservative party—the party that partied in Downing Street while the rest of the country was locked down. He knows that we all strive to get the best talent into Government, which is why there is a policy of “exception” appointments. Of the 80,000 appointments to the civil service under the previous Government, does he know how many were made under that regime? It was 9,000. We had a series of by-elections in the last Parliament because of members of his party. I refer him to Hansard to read a speech I gave that included a list of all the reasons for those by-elections; it makes for pretty horrifying reading.

The Conservatives have gone from being the party of government to being the party that gave up on governing. They would have done better to spend the summer reflecting on why they lost so badly, instead of trying to tell us that we have never had it so good. The one poll rating that the right hon. Gentleman should be focusing on is the one that says that the public really do not care who the next leader of the Conservative party is.

Business of the House

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House provide an update on forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 29 July will include:

Monday 29 July—Second Reading of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.

Tuesday 30 July—Second Reading of the Budget Responsibility Bill.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 30 July and return on Monday 2 September.

The business for the week commencing 2 September will include:

Monday 2 September—General debate. Subject to be confirmed.

Tuesday 3 September—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill.

Wednesday 4 September—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Budget Responsibility Bill.

Thursday 5 September—Second Reading of the Great British Energy Bill.

Friday 6 September—The House will not be sitting.

[Chris Philp]

Lieutenant Colonel Mark Teeton was brutally stabbed in Gillingham near the Brompton barracks a few days ago. I know that he will be in the thoughts of all Members, and will have our best wishes for a speedy recovery.

I extend my thanks to long-serving Doorkeeper John Tamlyn, who has served this House for 36 years—four times longer than I have been a Member of this House. He has witnessed many memorable scenes over the years, and by my calculation has seen no fewer than 10 Prime Ministers come and go—well, nine come and go, and one arrive, but I am optimistic that between now and next Tuesday he may make it 10 coming and going. I am sure that the whole House will wish John well in his retirement after so many years of distinguished service. Thank you.

We do not have a timetable for the election of Select Committees and other Committees. I know that Select Committees can sometimes be troubling for the Government; during my five years as a Minister I was gently roasted—sometimes violently flambéed—by many Select Committees.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

You’re welcome!

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is, however, important that we have Select Committees in place so that Back Benchers can hold the Government to account. If that is not temptation enough for the Leader of the House, let me say this: if her Back Benchers have Select Committees to serve on, they may have less time to plot rebellions. Will she confirm that all Select Committee Chairmen and members will be elected in September—and if not in September, when?

Many Members have expressed concern about the resumption of UK taxpayer funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. UNRWA stands accused of many appalling acts, including running schools using antisemitic textbooks encouraging violence, the documented involvement of at least 10 UNRWA members in the 7 October massacres, and close links between UNRWA staff and the Hamas terrorist organisation. Will the Leader of the House urgently arrange a debate on this decision in Government time, and can she guarantee that no taxpayer money will support, directly or indirectly, Hamas or any activities that encourage or facilitate terror?

The Government have sent mixed messages about plans to scrap the very reasonable two-child cap on welfare payments. Then, on Tuesday, the Government whipped their MPs to vote against scrapping it. There was a significant Back-Bench rebellion, less than three weeks after the election—not even Theresa May managed a rebellion within three weeks of an election, so it was a bit of a first. At this rate, the Government’s majority will be gone by about Easter of next year. [Interruption.] Look, I am always happy to debate these issues. The Leader of the House and the Government will actually have my support on this issue—she may not want it or welcome it, but she will have it anyway—so can we have that debate, not least so that her own parliamentary party and Back Benchers can properly discuss this important issue?

I understand that next week the Chancellor may make a statement on the public finances. Does the Leader of the House agree with what the Chancellor said during the election: that a party does not need to be in government to open the books because of the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts? Will the Government commit that any statement about public finances made in this House will be accompanied by an OBR forecast, since we can see from next week’s business that the Government are so keen to enshrine OBR forecasts further in law?

It seems clear to me that we may be presented next week with concocted and exaggerated claims about the public finances as a pretext for tax rises, so can the Leader of the House commit that the election promises that Government Members made—that there would be no tax rises beyond those in the Labour manifesto—will be honoured in full?

Finally, the Government recently announced the closure of the Bibby Stockholm barge. Will the Government update the House on where those people will now be accommodated and at what cost? I also notice that the Government have rebranded illegal immigration as “irregular”, and have said that they merely want to control it. I say to them that entering this country by small boat is illegal; it may help them to refer to section 74 of the Immigration Act 1971, as amended, if they are in any doubt. The Government’s objective should be to stop illegal immigration completely, not merely to control it, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on that?

That debate could cover what the Government plan to do in place of the Rwanda scheme that they have just scrapped. The first flight had been due to take off yesterday, 24 July, but the Government chose to cancel it. The deterrent effect that that flight would have had would have led to a cessation of channel crossings, as all the precedents in Australia and elsewhere have demonstrated. We saw it here with the Albanian cohort last year as well. The Government needlessly cancelled what would have been an effective deterrent measure. Will the Government allow a vote on that policy?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House and join him in paying our respects to those affected by the brutal attack in Kent this week.

In our last business questions before the summer recess, Mr Speaker, I want to put on record my thanks to you, House staff, security staff and others for all your hard work in recent weeks, and I wish you all some kind of holiday over that recess. I also congratulate our new Deputy Speakers; they are breaking more glass ceilings with an all-female line-up that is the most diverse in our history. On the same theme, I also send congratulations to Baroness Eluned Morgan, who is set to become Wales’s first female First Minister—that is a lot of firsts.

Finally, I put on record my thanks to the wonderful John Tamlyn, one of our fantastic Doorkeepers, who is retiring after 36 years of service. The shadow Leader of the House mentioned the number of Prime Ministers under which John served, but I think most of those came in the last few years of his time. As he said to me earlier, the last few years go a lot faster than the early ones.

I also want to address the truly shocking footage we have seen of an incident at Manchester airport. It was right of the Greater Manchester police force to refer itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct, given the widespread concern about the incident.

This week we have heard many maiden speeches. There has been a lot of demand, shall we say, but it has been good to see the enthusiasm of many colleagues from across these Benches. Those speeches have told the stories of our nation, of people and places striving to get on, and looking after and looking out for each other; but I am not sure that I can agree that every other constituency is the best in the country, because of course we all know that the best is actually Manchester Central.

This has been a special week for us on the Government side of the House. After long years in opposition, we have finally been able to win some votes in support of our ambitious, bold, fully costed King’s Speech programme. It is one to be proud of. It is the opportunity and responsibility of government made real.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the election of Select Committee Chairs. He will know that negotiations are ongoing between the usual channels about how those Chairs will be allocated. Once those are completed, we hope to have the elections as soon as possible.

As we end our third week in government, it is clearer than ever before that the Conservatives failed in their responsibility and left the country in state beyond our worst fears. They do not like to hear it, but they failed to take the tough and right choices. It is as if they knew that they were going to lose the election and left the really difficult decisions for us. They do not like it, but history will show it. That is not just my view. The National Audit Office found that the NHS has been left in an “unprecedented” crisis. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that we face

“some of the toughest choices in generations”.

The previous Government’s own Justice Secretary admitted that they ignored prisons running at 99% capacity because it would cost them votes to take action, so I am afraid that I will not be taking the shadow Leader of the House’s advice on the issues that he raises.

The shadow Leader of the House talks about redefining illegal migration. I remember the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly), redefining the backlog under the last Government as a “queue.” Far from being stopped, boats have been coming over in record numbers over the past year, so the Conservatives’ plan just was not working. That is why we have already reallocated resources and started returning illegal migrants, which his Government failed to do.

The shadow Leader of the House will know that, yes, we are taking action to ensure that all fiscal statements have Office for Budget Responsibility oversight. I am not sure whether his party will support that next week. The Conservatives had their chance to govern, and they left the country in a much worse state than they found it. They did not fix the roof while the sun was shining; in fact, their whole house was built on sand. We have been left the job of rebuilding from the bottom up, on shaky foundations, with most of the materials gone and the workforce depleted and demoralised, but we are getting on with the job, and there is more to come in coming days.

Manifesto commitments realised today will turn the page on an era of sleaze and scandal. Our first Bills, to be considered next week, will bring our railways back into public ownership—putting passengers first, not profit—and will protect our economy and family finances from Conservative Trussonomics, of which the shadow Leader of the House was an author. We will legislate for Great British Energy when Parliament returns, delivering energy security and lower bills. What a contrast with the dying days of the last Government. If he will forgive me, I will not be taking his advice; I will continue realising the change that the country is crying out for.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to address you by your new title, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I were first elected in 2015, and it is a real pleasure to see the first of the 2015 intake assuming the Chair to preside over our proceedings. I am delighted to be at the Dispatch Box for your first appearance in the Chair—the first of many over the coming years and, I hope, the coming decades—and I congratulate you on your well-deserved election.

As the Leader of the House said at the beginning of her eloquent and detailed speech, standards and integrity are critical to this House of Commons. We are the crucible of our nation’s democracy. Our constituents have sent us here to represent them, and they are entitled to expect the very highest standards of behaviour from us as Members of Parliament. We are fortunate that our standards in public life are higher than those in many other countries, but there is no room for complacency and we should strive constantly to improve and perfect the standards met in this House. That is a duty we owe the public.

I broadly welcome the initiative taken by the Leader of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points before turning to some of the specific matters before us. First, it is very important that these reforms, or indeed any reforms, command public confidence and are seen to be conducted for the best of reasons. It is important for us to proceed on a cross-party basis, because that will show that the measures are being taken not for party-political reasons but for the best of reasons—as I am sure they are—and will ensure that they stick. If there is a broad cross-party consensus, whatever reforms are made will endure and survive beyond any change of Government in the future—hopefully the near future from my point of view, but not, I suspect, from the point of view of the Leader of the House.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

With that in mind, and given the need to involve all parties—we are talking not just about this Parliament, but potentially about Parliaments for decades to come—does my right hon. Friend agree that amendment (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely reasonable and, indeed, addresses some of the issues that have been raised by the minor parties, because it would potentially bring them into scope?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on his long experience of the House. Amendment (b) does indeed address some of the points made in earlier interventions.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the consultations we have had in the past three weeks following our appointments. She has been collegiate and constructive in our conversations, and I look forward to those conversations continuing in that spirit. But I might be permitted one very small grumble: the motion we are debating today was laid relatively late on Tuesday evening. Under the rules, it could have been laid later, so I appreciate that it was laid a little in advance, but we did not have a lot of time to discuss potential amendments between the two of us, or indeed with other parties.

I will make a request for the future. If we are considering motions that touch on these issues and seeking a cross-party approach, it would be really helpful to have some more time so as to be able to hold discussions between the Leader of the House, me and other parties to see whether we can improve the motions. I know that we have discussed this in general terms, but it is only when we see the detail of the motion in black and white—for example, the one on the Modernisation Committee—that we can discuss it in proper detail. I would appreciate having a bit more time in future, so that we can discuss that between us. That might avoid the need to table amendments, and it would enshrine the consensual approach that I hope she will take.

Let me turn to motion 4, which is listed on page 7 of today’s Order Paper under “Business of the Day”. As the Leader of the House has said, the motion removes two exemptions that exist in paragraph 2 of chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, which means that Members will not be able to be paid for providing advice on public policy or current affairs, or general advice about how Parliament works. That is a broadly reasonable proposition that we are happy to support.

I have two questions asking for clarification, which perhaps she will address in her summing up. First, if a Member is pursuing a paid activity that is not specifically to do with offering advice of the kind mentioned—for example, they might be a lawyer or doing work with a trade union on a paid basis—and the thrust of the work is not to do with that sort of activity, but they briefly undertake activity that might fall into the definition, how would the Leader of the House view that? Is there an absolute and complete prohibition, or is there some sort of materiality test that she would expect the Standards Commissioner to apply? It would be useful if she could provide clarification from the Dispatch Box.

My second question was raised by a colleague. On occasion, Members may be paid for a party political position or a trade union position, in the course of which they might give advice. To give a specific example, it has been the case in the past that the chairman of the Conservative Party has been paid not as a Minister, but by the Conservative party. Would the new rule preclude that person, or indeed someone being paid by a trade union—probably on the Labour side—from offering the Conservative party or a trade union advice on public policy matters? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could shed some light on how she envisages that working. Broadly, however, we support the changes and will not be opposing them—in the new spirit of cross-party working, which we are nervously embracing.

For complete clarity, it is worth mentioning that there is a third exemption in the rules that the Leader of the House did not refer to: limb (c) of the relevant provision, which is contained in paragraph 2 of chapter 4. Limb (c) allows Members of Parliament to be paid for making media appearances, journalism, writing books, and delivering public lectures and speeches. For the sake of complete clarity, it is worth saying that the motion before us does not make any changes to that third limb—the Leader of the House will tell me if I have got this wrong—so Members will continue to be able to be paid for those activities. She might just confirm that, but it seems a fairly clear consequence of the fact that only limbs (a) and (b) are being deleted, and not limb (c).

I will now move on to motion 5, on the Modernisation Committee, which appears on page 7 of the Order Paper. In principle, the Opposition will work constructively with the Leader of the House and her colleagues to achieve some of the objectives that she set out in her speech—we have no objection to the principle of the new Committee. Of course, we want to ensure that whatever proposals it brings forward are carefully scrutinised.

On holding the Government to account, there are lots of things about the way this House operates that are very important for Opposition parties big and small, but also for Back Benchers, including Government Back Benchers. I am sure that Labour Members have heard a bit about private Members’ Bills, which provide a really good opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to bring forward what are typically quite specific Bills to bring about a change that the Government might not have time to legislate for. Back Benchers can bring forward a Bill to do something that is important to them, and I think we all want to ensure that is protected.

Similarly, the Backbench Business Committee sets out the business for Thursdays. Government and Opposition Back Benchers can go before the Committee and organise a debate on a particular topic, which I did as a Back Bencher a few years ago. It is a really good way of making sure that an issue that matters to Back Benchers gets aired not in Westminster Hall or on the Committee corridor, but right here in the Chamber. I remember organising a debate on the persecution of Christians around the world, which would not necessarily have been debated on the Floor of the House; using that mechanism, it was debated.

Westminster Hall also provides a great opportunity to raise issues of concern to a Member or their constituency. Opposition day debates are very important as well, because they offer Opposition Members a chance to hold the Government to account. There are a whole load of areas that we want to ensure are protected for Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and for Opposition parties big and small. I am sure that it is not the Leader of the House’s intention to undermine the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, but if they are considered by the Modernisation Committee, we will collectively need to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition parties are properly protected.

I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer some assurances that go beyond those she has given already. If she is able to offer such assurances, I will not move the amendments, but if her assurances are insufficiently robust, I will move the amendments and we will vote on them. I should tell Members that, typically, business of the House like this is not whipped. We will not be whipping Conservative Members, who are free to vote according to their conscience. I hope the Government are adopting the same approach and allowing Government Back Benchers to exercise their conscience. It is a long-standing tradition that the business of the House, which this is, is not whipped. We are each voting on the motion as individual Members of Parliament and not, I hope, according to a party political direction handed out by the Whips Office. That is the approach we are taking, and I hope it is the approach the Government are taking as well.

To be clear, the purpose of the amendments is not to impede or frustrate in any way the objectives that the Leader of the House set out in her speech, which we accept. In principle, we support them and will work constructively with her and her colleagues, but some concerns have been raised by my colleagues—some of whom may speak later—who have previously served on some of the Committees, such as the Committee on Standards. In the last Parliament, the Committee on Standards was chaired by the former Member for Peckham, Harriet Harman. She was the Mother of the House, and a very distinguished and highly respected Member for many years. The Committee has done a lot of work in this area, and it is quite complicated. The way that the standards regime operates is not straightforward, and the questions are complicated. When Harriet Harman chaired the Committee, she spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and published the report to which the Leader of the House referred.

Various existing Committees are relevant here, particularly the Procedure Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee and the Administration Committee. They are all important Committees of the House and have all done important work in this area. They are all elected by the House, and at least one of them, the Standards Committee, has external members—I think one of them is a retired chief constable. The Committees have an element of independence, and I am concerned that the establishment of the Modernisation Committee might replace, cut across or in some way supersede or impede the work of the other House Committees, which are highly independent.

With the amendments, I have tried to make a couple of things clear, so I am looking for explicit assurances from the Leader of the House on the following points. The first assurance that I am looking for is that if the Modernisation Committee is going to consider a particular matter, it will consider all the previous work done by the four Committees that I have mentioned—the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees—and will commission the relevant underlying Committee to do a fresh report on the matter in hand and report up to the Modernisation Committee. I think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind, and it is what she said to me privately, if I understood her correctly, but I would be grateful if she could be explicit and make it clear on the record that that is how she intends it to work.

The second important assurance is that the views of the Speaker will always be sought and fully taken into account on matters that are relevant to the work of the Committee. The Speaker is elected by all of us— unanimously, as it happened—and his views and the views of the Deputy Speakers are important.

The third assurance is that matters that would ordinarily fall to the House of Commons Commission will not be usurped, as it were, by the Committee. The Leader of the House said to me previously that the functions of the House of Commons Commission are not defined, but they are in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

In amendments (b) and (c), I propose that the Chairs of the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees be added to the Committee so that it has 18 members rather than 14. That would make sure that there is an opportunity for a smaller party to serve in that capacity and that the expertise of those Chairs comes directly to the Committee.

In addition, I propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attends the Committee. They would not be a member, because they would have to be a Member of Parliament to be a member of a Select Committee, but an attendee or an observer, so that the commissioner could offer his or her opinion on the matters before the Committee, receive papers, and give other assistance as required.

All those amendments are designed to ensure that the existing Committees are properly taken into account and involved, and that their voice is heard, because they are important Committees with a lot of experience. If someone looks at some of these issues at first blush, such as second jobs, they might think that they are quite straightforward, but often they are not. There are all kinds of questions about people who have family businesses or a farm, or people who practise medicine or are doctors, that require careful thought. I do not want the work that has been done previously and that will be done in future to be lost.

I am asking the Leader of the House to give explicit assurances. In her opening speech, she gave general assurances that those Committees have a vital role, and that the Modernisation Committee would draw heavily on their work and not duplicate what they do, but I am asking for the specific assurances that I have just set out. If she can give all those assurances, or a substantial amount of them, I will not move the amendments, because I want to proceed in a spirit of cross-party harmony if at all possible. The Opposition stand ready to work constructively on these issues to ensure that Parliament’s reputation remains the highest of any Parliament anywhere in the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Harmony is in all of our gift.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulated one of your colleagues at the beginning, so let me add my congratulations to you on your election to the Chair.

Let me start by saying a huge congratulations and well done to the Members on both sides making some very impressive maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott)—I am struggling to see him in the Chamber—listed all the premier league grounds he intends to visit now that his team are in the premier league. He did not mention Selhurst Park, the home of Crystal Palace in the borough I represent in Parliament—an accidental omission, I am sure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made an excellent maiden speech. I wish him good luck with the upcoming house move. He very wisely observed that he does not plan to place any political bets anytime soon. The hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) gave an excellent speech. He clearly brings to the House experience as a former chair of the Local Government Association. There is certainly no need for him to experience any imposter syndrome.

We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), who spoke extremely eloquently about his constituency and the Edinburgh festival. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) about his support for the modernisation of Parliament and his commitment to public service here. We heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), who made an excellent and very eloquent speech. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) will clearly bring to bear her experience as a former deputy headteacher. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has possibly one of the narrowest majorities in Parliament, which he will no doubt be valiantly defending. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) paid fulsome tribute to the work of her predecessor, Andrew Stunell. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) has already assumed ministerial office. In fact, I can see his red ministerial folder on his knees— a meteoric ascent. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) is apparently going to be the new Ed Sheeran of Parliament—that is what I took from his speech, anyway—and his mum is with us today. I did speak to a Labour Member whose mum was also here during her maiden speech a few days ago. Apparently, her mum fell asleep during the preceding speeches. You can take that how you will. [Laughter.]

Having congratulated new Members on their really brilliant maiden speeches, let me turn back to the substance before us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke eloquently about the importance of ensuring that we take on board the long expertise of the existing House Committees, in particular the Standards Committee, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also referred to at the beginning from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Standards Committee is elected by the House, not appointed by Whips, as the new Committee will be, and has seven lay members who bring in external experience, including, as I said earlier, a retired chief constable and others who bring genuine independence and expertise. It is vital that we continue to draw on the independence and experience of the Standards Committee.

These are complicated issues. We heard from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), winding up for the Liberal Democrats just a moment ago, how experience of practising medicine can help to enrich debates and inform the proceedings of the House, as Dan Poulter did when he was both a Member of Parliament and a practising doctor. Such considerations need to be carefully considered.

I am very much hoping—I might even go so far as to say “expecting”—that the Leader of the House will give the House some assurances in her winding-up speech. In particular, I seek assurances that the Procedure Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges and the Administration Committee will always be invited to report to the Modernisation Committee on matters that it is due to consider; that the Speaker will always be consulted; that the work of the Modernisation Committee will not cut across what the House of Commons Commission does; and that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be invited to make submissions and give evidence where appropriate or necessary. If the Leader of the House can give strong enough such assurances about how the Committee will function, as well as an assurance that she will chair it on the basis of cross-party consensus, I am prepared not to move my amendments. I therefore wait with trembling and eager anticipation to hear what she says.

I am sure I speak for us all when I say that it is critical that we maintain standards at the very highest level here, to ensure that the public—our constituents—can have confidence in the work we do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Leader of the House.

[Lucy Powell]

May I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on having already made good use of the parliamentary hairdressers? I hope that you will maintain that tradition.

I thank so many Members of this House for taking part in this debate. We have heard some excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) all made excellent contributions. There is always a competition about who represents the very best constituency, but of course we all know that it is actually me.

Trust and dedication to constituencies, constituents and public service have been a common theme today. Substantive points have also been raised about the modernisation agenda, for which I am really grateful. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), raised several issues. I welcome his engagement, which I have sought over recent days; I discussed our proposals with him well in advance of tabling them.

The size of the Modernisation Committee, which is the subject of Opposition amendment (c), has been part of the conversation about representation across the House. The current proposal is to have 14 members; under the current algorithm, which is based on the make-up of the House, that will give nine places to the Government, three to the official Opposition and two to the third party. Expanding the Committee to 18 members would give 12 places to the Government party and three to the third party, but the official Opposition would still have three. I looked at all the numbers and I felt that having 14 members would give the fairest distribution among Government and Opposition parties. Going bigger still would not bring the smaller parties into the mix, which is why I have made a very firm commitment to have ongoing dialogue and meaningful engagement with them. If the numbers included Chairs of other Committees, the shadow Leader of the House might actually lose his place on the Committee, because the other Committee Chairs would take up the official Opposition places, so I ask him to think about the numbering.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Modernisation Committee’s relationship to other Committees. It is essential to be clear about this. I have been very clear that it will be a strategic, overarching Committee. It will not seek to duplicate any of the work of other Committees, which would be a waste of everybody’s time. Instead, it will work closely with those Committees, commission their work, seek their views, ask for their reports and their input and carefully consider their recommendations on all matters.

I see this as a sort of clearing house, a “task and finish” group that can more quickly bring recommendations from some of those Committees to the Floor of the House and take a strategic overview of how the different issues interrelate. The Standards Committee itself recommended that in its most recent report, in which it described the siloed and disjointed context in which we operate.

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Lady’s comments are extremely welcome, but, for absolute clarity, can she confirm that when the new Modernisation Committee intends to consider a matter, it will first invite the relevant other Committee of the House to prepare a report and come back to the Modernisation Committee with it?

[Lucy Powell]

On the whole, yes; that is the intention and the hope. Some of those Committees do not yet have Chairs, but that is certainly the modus operandi for which we are hoping. We do not expect to be doing that work ourselves, or duplicating it.

The Standards Committee, which was raised earlier, has a completely distinct and different role because of the relationship with the lay members and with the Standards Commissioner. As I have said to the Leader of the House privately—I am sorry; I mean the shadow Leader of the House. [Laughter.] I am still getting used to this gig. As I have said to the shadow Leader, I sought the advice of the Standards Commissioner when considering how we would tighten the rules on paid advocacy, and I have followed his advice to the letter, because I think this is critical. The Standards Commissioner would not want to sit on the Committee because it would conflict with his role, but I see his role as being central to the drawing up of any further advice, because he has to police it—that is his job. I hope that satisfies the shadow Leader of the House.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I have worked closely together, and I greatly value her input on these issues. I think that we largely agree on most of them. We do need to take forward the recommendations on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme review, and that would be a first task for the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) made an erudite speech, as usual, about trust and cleaning up politics, and I thank him for his contribution. That is very much what we are seeking to do. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has done invaluable work on this matter in the past in his role as a member of the Standards Committee. As I have said, I am very conscious of the work that the lay members do and the need for that to play a separate role in this context, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the landscape review pointed clearly to the need for a more strategic, joined-up approach to some of these issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as a newbie, presented some welcome ideas. She reflects the enthusiasm of many other newbies and, I think, the frustration of many of them as well.

I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) from outside the Chamber. I really do value her contribution to this debate, and I look forward to working with her. I would love to have her on the Committee, but I am hopeful that we can find a way for that ongoing relationship to be meaningful and regular, and that she will be able to contribute some of the ideas that she mentioned today in a more formal manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), in a very short space of time, gave some very good advice about the implications for safety and human resources on the estate, and she was right to do so. We did not hear many comments on second jobs, but I think we all agree that we need to take action in that regard, and I am glad to see the extent of the cross-party support for such action.

I hope we will not divide the House on these issues, because I think it important for us to stand together today. We have seen plenty of enthusiasm and support, and I hope that Members will now support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, with effect from 25 October 2024, paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members be amended to leave out:

“a) advice on public policy and current affairs;

b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Amendment (b) has been selected. I call Chris Philp.

[Chris Philp]

On the basis of the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I will not move the amendment.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

As amendment (b) has not been moved, I will not call amendments (c) and (d), but I will call amendment (e).

[Chris Philp]

On the basis of the Leader of the House’s assurances, I will not move the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.