Extreme Heat Preparedness

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

At last, a constructive question. The hon. Gentleman raises two important points, and I will certainly take them away and reassure myself that they are both being addressed.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Many of us are very concerned about our ambulance services, which were already working under extreme pressure before this heatwave. All 10 of the mainland England ambulance services are on maximum alert, and we hear tales of ambulances queueing outside accident and emergency for hours on end with patients sweltering in the extreme heat, which must surely make their condition much worse. Can the Secretary of State assure me that there is somebody in the Cabinet who has responsibility for co-ordinating all the Departments to ensure that the ambulance services in England get the maximum assistance at this time?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is about to make a statement on exactly that issue, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will stay in the Chamber for that. The Secretary of State and I have been reassuring ourselves about the co-ordination and resources that are available. I think the number of personnel in the ambulance services is up 40% over the last few years, and £150 million has been put in to help them to cope with the pressures at the moment. The Secretary of State will have more to say about that imminently.

Adviser on Ministerial Interests

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. and learned Friend is coming to the right conclusions about the Government’s indecision and apparently clear intention of not having an ethics adviser put in place at the earliest possible opportunity. A number of things are coming up—I will mention a couple of them—in the in-tray for any adviser to consider, some of which will greatly concern Members of this House.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that further delay and dilly-dallying in the appointment of an ethics adviser does nothing whatever to restore public confidence in our Government?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely and utterly right. I do not think that, in my 20-odd years in the House, I have seen it in such a dilapidated condition, when public trust in the activities of the House, the way in which we do business and the way in which we conduct ourselves has been so badly misunderstood and misinterpreted by the public. It is incumbent on the House to start to try and put these things right.

Let us get back to our good friend Lord Geidt. I do not know what it was in his comments that he had been left in

“an impossible and odious position”

and that he could not be

“party to advising on any potential law-breaking”

that led to any misunderstanding about his intention to resign from his role, and the real reasons why he eventually got around to it. Perhaps he had to be got rid of because it was he who had previously investigated the controversy over how the Prime Minister had funded the refurbishment of the flat above No. 11 Downing Street.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) referred to several issues that might require the attention of a future independent ethics adviser, but surely the one at the top of his inbox would be our emerging concern that the Prime Minister was seriously considering appointing his now wife to the role of special adviser in the Foreign Office. That is a matter that I think the House will have to return to in due course, and consider properly. Although Lord Geidt concluded that the Prime Minister had not broken ministerial rules in respect of the prime ministerial flat, the Conservative Party was later fined £17,800 for the improper declaration of donations.

So Lord Geidt is gone, and I have the impression that Downing Street is not particularly upset about that, but what is to be done? I have no problem with the Labour party’s motion, and I will support it; the only thing that I would say to Labour Members is that I would not give them the chance to try and find an independent adviser on the Government’s ethics. In any event, I think that it should be a matter for the House. I accept that some of these issues are relevant and pertinent to Government activity and business, but surely the House should have some sort of say, through the function of its Committees, in who does the monitoring and how that person is appointed. The present system has not worked particularly well in the case of the last few independent advisers. I think that we would need to find someone with the attributes of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Columbo and George Washington combined to perform this role effectively.

In Scotland, of course, we have our much neater and easier way out of this midden, and that is to simply leave all of you to get on with it in your own time and in your own way. I have no idea what Scotland has done in its history to deserve governance such as this, but believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleagues and I are doing everything possible to ensure that the situation will be rectified. When it is right that we put forward the case for independence—as we will, and we will convince the Scottish people of its merits—all we need to do is to get the Scottish people to turn on the Parliament channel and observe what is happening in the House. That will increase their enthusiasm, and cause them to rush towards the cause of independence. The choice for them will be whether to be governed by these privileged Etonian spivs with their “one rule for them” approach to government, or to become a self-governing nation run by the people who care most about Scotland—the people who live and work there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

May I say at the outset that Lord Geidt is a personal friend of my family? I do not wish to go any further than that, other than to say that I should like, along with everyone else here, to express my thanks for all that he has done.

What is at stake here, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) admirably hinted, is the issue of trust, and I want to give an example of how this works in practice. My predecessor bar two was Robert Maclennan. Bob was first elected in 1966 with a majority of 64 votes. After that, as the elections went by, he increased his majority and stayed as the Member for Caithness and Sutherland and latterly for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross until he retired. What is interesting about Bob’s career is that he changed party twice. He was elected as a Labour Member in 1966. He was then a founding member of the Social Democratic party and was one of the few SDP Members to hold his seat in 1983. He subsequently joined the Liberal Democrats, and that was what he was when he retired. That is most unusual for a politician, but the reason he held his seat was that he was trusted. He was known to be a man of integrity, decency, kindness and diligence. So, trust is crucial in what we are talking about this evening.

We describe ourselves with pride as the mother of Parliaments, but when I have talked to people in my constituency in the last few weeks, they have said, “Can you trust anything that is said in that place? How do you feel about it?” That saddens me greatly, because if we are to be the mother of Parliaments, and if we are to stand up for democracy across the world, we need to know that we do things absolutely by the book and with absolute integrity. If there is any hint that we do not, that damages the reputation of this place, and I regret that massively. I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), who is no longer in his place. He also came to the nub of the issue when he said that this is about trust and about being seen to do things properly.

If I were to find myself in deep trouble and in a court of law, I would have no hesitation in hiring the services of either the Minister or the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), because I am certain that those august gentlemen would provide me with a most eloquent defence and probably get me off. But we are being looked at by the general public, and the general public are not fools. They are more than capable of coming to conclusions about people. Is this person—he or she—telling the truth? Is this person to be trusted or not? Let me give the House one good Conservative example of somebody who I believe was trusted: John Major. He was seen to be a straight guy and a straight Prime Minister. So trust is there. What I say to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General is this: be careful. Be careful about clever arguments. Be careful about the use of words that can have all sorts of different meanings, because the British public has no time for that whatsoever.

I agree with other Members. I very much hope and expect that the Minister will clarify exactly what he means about the appointment of a new ethics adviser. That is essential. It sounds a bit apocalyptic but let me say it: I believe the nation is watching right now and at stake is the reputation of this place. If we take it seriously then it matters absolutely not just how we do things or how we are seen by our electorate or the country, but across the world. I await and I hope.

Debate on the Address

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

The hon. Lady is right: there is nothing in this Queen’s Speech to deal with the cost of living crisis, and nothing to deal with home insulation. In the Scottish Parliament, the collaboration between the SNP and the Greens is an example of two parties coming together to make sure that we prioritise the climate emergency, which is really missing from this Queen’s Speech.

Scottish Power has already called for urgent action. It has called for £1,000 bill discounts for 10 million families before energy bills rocket by another £900 this autumn, and yet, once again, there is nothing of that from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in this Queen’s Speech. In fact, the Chancellor has already told us that his strategy to tackle the cost of living crisis is, literally, to sit on his hands, because he thinks it would be silly to act now—silly to act at a time when people are facing tough decisions on whether to turn the heating off, whether they can afford to put food on the table. The Chancellor thinks it is silly to act—that tells us everything that we need to know about the humanity and compassion of this Conservative Government. Just like the spring statement, nothing has come from this Government. This Queen’s Speech represents one more missed opportunity.

I can give the Prime Minister some suggestions. He could have matched the Scottish child payment, which doubled in April and will increase to £25 per week per child by the end of this year. That is positive action to help those most in need. He could have matched the increase in Scottish-issued social security payments by 6%. He could have done what Governments are supposed to do in an emergency: helped people through it. By any measure or meaning, this Government fail on all counts.

Another gaping hole in this programme is when it comes to energy policy, as has already been raised. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) rightly said last month, the Prime Minister’s energy strategy is nothing more than a con trick, lacking any substance or ambition. The lack of ambition to drive growth in green investment and forge the path to net zero, not to mention an industrial strategy to back it up, fails this and future generations. That lack of ambition will not help investment in renewables, it will not help a just transition and it certainly will not help consumers now or in the long term. As for us in Scotland—a country so rich in energy potential—it is fleecing us of our green present and future.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine border the Cromarty Firth, which has the Nigg fabrication yard where many of the mightiest oil production platforms in the North sea were constructed. Would it not be a positive suggestion to Her Majesty’s Government to power ahead with building floating offshore wind structures in the highlands of Scotland? That would help the Prime Minister and it would help us in Scotland.

[Ian Blackford]

I am very grateful for that intervention, and I agree 100% with what the hon. Gentleman has said; he and I have been talking about that over recent months. There is fantastic potential, not just for the highlands but for the whole of Scotland, to benefit from the industrial revolution that will come from the opportunities in green energy. We need to make sure that we learn from the lessons of the past and that we are able to capture that supply chain. If we go back to the 1970s, Nigg was a thriving industrial base, with thousands of jobs in that community supporting the oil industry.

I know the hon. Gentleman, like me, wants to see the highlands and islands being a thriving area with an industrial future, but we need the UK Government to help us on that. I look forward, together with him, to having discussions with the Government on exactly how we take that forward.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I do not think that that intervention reflects the tone of the debate thus far. With respect to the hon. Lady, although I will touch on some of those matters, I will not follow directly down that route, because what we are talking about is an important and serious matter. It is important because it relates not just to the incidents that are reported, and, to some degree anyway, are accepted to have happened at No.10 Downing Street, but to a general culture and attitude. It is important for this House because it relates to three important things, which I—and I hope the whole House—hold dear: the first is the issue of public trust; the second is respect for the rule of law, and that in the context of adherence to the laws and the fact that the laws made by this House must be adhered to by all equally—

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Robert Neill]

May I just finish the phrase? There is always a tendency to intervene while someone is part way through a sentence.

The third point is that respect for the rule of law also means respect for procedural fairness, which is what I will come to in a moment.

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to put it on the record that he has been extremely courteous to me on a personal level ever since my first appearance here and that I have great respect for him.

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman, like me—I speak as a Scot—is a Unionist, and those on the SNP Benches in front of me know that. I believe in the United Kingdom and in the benefits of the Union between Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales. Part of the reason why that Union works is exactly to do with what the hon. Gentleman was talking about, which is respect for this place and the way that we do things. Does he think that the continuation of the Prime Minister in office will strengthen or threaten that precious Union?

Appointment of Lord Lebedev

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I heard you loud and clear.

I beg to move,

That, given the concerns raised about the appropriateness of, and process for, appointing Lord Lebedev as a member of the House of Lords and the role of the Prime Minister in that process, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, no later than 28 April,

(a) any document held by the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office containing or relating to advice from, or provided to, the House of Lords Appointments Commission concerning the appointment of Evgeny Alexandrovich Lebedev as a Member of the House of Lords; and

(b) the minutes of, submissions relevant to and electronic communications relating to, any meeting within the Cabinet Office or the Prime Minister’s Office at which the appointment of Lord Lebedev, or advice relating to that appointment, was discussed in a form which may contain redactions, but such redactions shall be solely for the purposes of national security.

May I start by noting the latest news from Ukraine? I know the whole House will be united in our outrage at the atrocities that have been reported, our deepest sympathy to the victims, and our ongoing support and our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. We will be united, too, in the message that we send to Putin. We will not waver in standing firm against his aggression, and the unity in this House reflects that in the country and among the constituents whom we represent.

It is all the more important, in that context, that we make sure that we do all we can to protect our country’s security and our people’s safety. This Government’s ultimate responsibility to this House is to keep people safe, and it is all the more important that we stand up for the fundamental values of democracy in stark contrast to authoritarian regimes and dictatorships such as that in the Kremlin today. That is why we are here today—to defend our country’s security and its democracy, and to hold our Government to the highest standards in doing the same.

Every Minister has a fundamental duty to protect the people of this country and to prioritise their safety above all else. We have tabled this motion because serious questions have been asked about whether the current Prime Minister upheld that duty to the standard that we would expect, and because those questions have not been answered with the transparency that we would expect.

We must get to the facts of the case. An investigation by The Sunday Times found that, on 17 March 2020, British intelligence warned the House of Lords Appointments Commission against granting a peerage to the Prime Minister’s close friend, now the Lord Lebedev of Hampton and Siberia. The commission concluded it could not support his nomination. Forty-eight hours later, the Prime Minister visited Lebedev at his home in London. Details of that meeting have never been released to the public, and questions remain about whether the security services knew about this meeting, or whether their assessments show that the Kremlin was keeping tabs on these activities.

In July 2020, Lebedev’s appointment as a peer was announced, so the question is this: what changed between the security warning and the appointment? The British public have a right to know if, and how, an individual of apparent concern to our intelligence services was granted a seat at the heart of Parliament by personal order of the Prime Minister, and whether the Prime Minister was aware of that security advice, but chose to ignore it, overrule it or even demand that it be changed.

This is not the first time concerns have been raised about Lebedev by the British security services. As long as a decade ago, Sir John Sawers, the head of MI6, made it clear that he did not deem Lebedev a suitable person to meet. It remains unclear if the Prime Minister—then Foreign Secretary—was made aware of these security concerns, but his deeply concerning links to Putin are well known. He has been open about them on Twitter, where he has promoted the worst conspiracy theories and defences of Vladimir Putin, and raised questions over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Kremlin critic poisoned in a London hotel.

Lebedev’s father and business partner is a former KGB spy turned billionaire oligarch, who continues to fill his coffers with investments in occupied Crimea and in Russian munitions. We have heard worrying reports about the existence of a private back channel between our Prime Minister and President Putin, facilitated by Lebedev. Can the Minister shed light on this deeply concerning allegation and rule out the existence of such a back channel? As the bombing of Ukraine and the tragedy continue and the threat from Russia in the west intensifies, does the Minister think this appointment, in apparent opposition to the security services, was appropriate?

The Cabinet Office plays a central role in the vetting process of Lords appointments. In Lord Lebedev’s case, Cabinet Office security officials were responsible for relaying the intelligence and guidance to the House of Lords Appointments Commission that formed the basis of its objections to his appointment. However, reports by The Sunday Times and a written statement by the then chief of staff to the Prime Minister allege that he “cut a deal” to provide the appointments commission with a “sanitised” version of the advice.

Could the Minister outline how, when and why the guidance changed after communication with the Prime Minister, and could he confirm whether the Cabinet Office had sight of security advice warnings against the appointment of Lord Lebedev? This is a matter of national security, and there can be no delay in getting transparency in this case. There are also serious questions about whether the Prime Minister put his personal interests before the public interest in this case. The Prime Minister’s apparent cavalier disregard for those serious security warnings speaks to a wider culture at the heart of this Government where the rules do not apply when it comes to appointing friends and donors to public office.

If the Prime Minister himself is willing to overrule British intelligence agencies, this raises serious questions about appointments more generally, and specifically in the House of Lords. Appointments to the Lords should be made based on integrity and contribution to our country. They are not some free pass. They are not a golden ticket for Prime Ministers to grant to their mates, like a membership of some posh London boys club, or a way to say thanks to billionaire mates after years of wining and dining, and champagne receptions and holidaying, not to mention the favourable headlines. But seriously, appointment to this Parliament should be on the basis of dedication, integrity and contribution to public life in Britain.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Clearly, I represent a far-flung part of the United Kingdom, and there are good and hard-working citizens who give their entire working lives for such communities. In the past, this has been recognised by means of an honour—Order of the British Empire, British Empire Medal or whatever. Can I suggest to the right hon. Lady and to everyone in this place that the Lebedev peerage cheapens the whole system of honours and reduces its value to those people who genuinely deserve to be recognised in civil society?

[Angela Rayner]

Absolutely. I fully agree with the hon. Member’s contribution. During the pandemic, we saw such dedication by our key workers, with doctors and nurses putting their lives on the line to save the lives of others.

Instead, we see reports that the Prime Minister parachuted his close friend Lord Lebedev into the heart of the UK’s Parliament, a man with whom the Prime Minister has enjoyed a decade-long courtship, which included a stay at the oligarch’s castle in 2018, where he is reported to have attended a party over the course of a weekend, with all his flights and accommodation paid for by Lebedev. An investigation by The Guardian revealed that during his stay, the Prime Minister, who was then Foreign Secretary, is reported to have met Alexander Lebedev, the former KGB agent and father of Lord Lebedev. The party took place just days after the Prime Minister—then Foreign Secretary—attended a NATO meeting to discuss the response to the Salisbury poisoning, in which the nerve agent Novichok was used in an assassination attempt on the Skripals. Immediately following the meeting in which Putin’s deadly attack on British soil was discussed, the Prime Minister reportedly ditched his security protection to attend the Lebedev party, where a former KGB agent was in attendance. The Prime Minister seems more interested in attending parties with his Russian billionaire mates than listening to the concerns of the British security services.

Culture is set from the top. Appointments matter. Politicians come and go, but Lord Lebedev will be a permanent fixture of our Parliament in the other place for decades. There is a serious precedent to be set in this case about how Parliament chooses to appoint those who represent us. It also raises serious questions about the relaxed vetting process of Lords appointments, creating a security risk at the heart of our democracy. This must be taken seriously, and for that reason I ask the Minister this: will there be a review of the House of Lords appointment process?

We must ensure that a robust vetting system is in place that safeguards our democracy and ensures transparency for the public. Indeed, the Lord Speaker recently called for a more rigorous appointment process for peers. We have a Prime Minister who appears willing to jeopardise the security of the British public for the sake of a personal friendship. The culture is set from the top, and in this case it raises much wider concerns about public appointments. It is time for the Prime Minister to come clean today about whether and why he interfered with British intelligence to award a peerage to his close personal friend. The full Cabinet Office guidance about a peerage for Mr Lebedev, which was mysteriously airbrushed, must now be published in the national interest. The Prime Minister claims that that advice cannot be published because it will undermine confidence in the appointments process. Well, it is a bit late for that. This is about his actions. He has run roughshod over the integrity of the process, and put his own interests before those of Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for what he says about people in East Sussex. I know how tough it is for people who have been short of power for days on end, and it is no consolation to them for me to say that 97% of those who lost power have now been reconnected. We are working as fast as we can with local authorities and the electricity companies to ensure that they get their power back, but also to ensure that we build in more resilience for the future.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Let us be clear about this: is it not an absolute disgrace that a Privy Counsellor, adviser to the Queen and former First Minister of Scotland sees fit to broadcast his half-baked world views week after week on Russian television?

[The Prime Minister]

That was a brilliant, powerful question with which I think the whole House assented. Would it not have been more powerful if it had come from the leader of the Scottish National party?

Ukraine

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The crisis around Ukraine will be replayed across the whole map of eastern Europe if we fail now, and if we do not stand up to Putin. She is entirely right in what she says about the Balkans.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

It is not just Ukraine; we have military forces in Estonia, which is a member of NATO and a true friend of the UK. The Prime Minister said that if Russia invades Ukraine, we will bolster up our NATO allies. Should we not have more forces in Estonia now?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I have been to see the 850 troops in Tapa, as I am sure he has. They do a fantastic job in Estonia. We are looking potentially to increase our presence in the NATO south-eastern flank as well.

Armed Forces Bill

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Leo Docherty]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. That is why we are trying to consolidate experience across all three services and have a much closer working relationship with the civilian police. We look forward to seeing how the new format rolls out, but we have confidence in the structure.

With these improvements, the MOD will be in a stronger position to respond to serious crime. However, if things do go wrong, the independent service police complaints commissioner—a body also created by the Bill, in clause 11—will be able to determine the appropriate course of action in response to a complaint. These measures will ensure that the service justice system is more effective and efficient in the round and that it provides a better service to those who use it, which will in turn increase public confidence in the system.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Would the Minister care to comment on something that the hon. Member for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), who chairs the sub- Committee, said? She said:

“Military women are being denied justice. It is clear to us that serious sexual offences should not be tried in the court martial system.”

I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that.

[Leo Docherty]

In simple terms, there are circumstances —normally involving the welfare of the alleged victim—in which it would be advantageous for a case to be heard in the military context. Those cases might be small in number, but it is important for the sake of the victim that agility and choice are retained in terms of our approach.

Furthermore, while the Government accept the need to improve decision making in relation to concurrent jurisdiction, we do not agree with the Lords amendment that an Attorney General consent function is the best way to achieve that. That is because, for the Attorney General to make an informed, meaningful and final decision, the request for consent must come at the end of the investigatory process when key decisions on jurisdiction have already been made. The Government instead believe that a better approach is to strengthen the prosecutors’ protocol. Clause 7 ensures that decisions on jurisdiction are left to the independent service justice and civilian prosecutors, using guidance they have agreed between them. In simple terms, where there is disagreement on jurisdiction, the Director of Public Prosecutions always has the final say. For this reason and others, I urge hon. Members to reject Lords amendment 1.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Maria Caulfield]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Maternity care is a top priority for the Government, and earlier this year NHS England announced a £95 million recurrent funding package to support the recruitment of 1,200 midwives and 100 consultant obstetricians. Maintaining both the skill mix and the numbers is key to retaining experienced midwives, who often have to take the pressure when there are staff shortages.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

5. What steps she plans to take with the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to tackle Islamophobia in sport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)]

I am sure the whole House has been appalled by recent reports of racism in cricket, a sad reminder that racial discrimination still exists within sport. There can be no place for it. Sports bodies must take robust action to tackle this behaviour. The Government and our sports councils are committed to ensuring that sport is inclusive for everyone, and will be watching; where action does not go far enough, the Government are prepared to step in.

[Jamie Stone]

It seems to me that we have an opportunity here to tackle hate crimes by raising them to the status of aggravated offences. Clearly, training and resources would have to follow that decision, but, while we can all say the right things and be quite correct in what we say about absolutely opposing Islamophobia and antisemitism, unless we do something concrete, we may have this problem for a lot longer than we think.

[Nigel Huddleston]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right: we must ensure that laws are constantly updated and reviewed. That goes for the offline world, but also the online one; I am sure he will be aware of the work we are doing, with cross-party support, on online safety to tackle the important issues he raises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. No one should feel afraid to participate in our democracy. Intimidation in public life can stop talented people, such as my hon. Friend, and those from minority backgrounds from standing for public office.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

T4. When it comes to inequalities, young carers very often lose out. Can I invite Ministers to come and look at a wonderful organisation in Wick called KLICS, which really is delivering a service that means a huge amount to young people?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I am sure we would be very keen to do that.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I will go on to discuss more about natural justice in a moment, so if I may, I will continue.

In no previous case that I have seen on this Committee have witnesses been called to give verbal evidence. The Committee was right to maintain a consistent approach in its process. Had we not, very quickly people would have been asking, “Why are you changing the rules?” There is also a route for questioning individuals such as witnesses in writing should the Committee feel that that is necessary, and we have done so recently.

Thirdly, I have heard some say that the commissioner is prosecutor, judge and jury, but I am afraid that that is not quite the case. The Standards Committee makes the final determination on all of the evidence and only the Committee decides on the sanction—the commissioner makes no decision on the sanction. Should the Committee feel that, on balance, the commissioner has not satisfactorily made the case that a Member has breached the code, as was recently the case with my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), the Committee can reject the commissioner’s findings.

In early 2020, the House charged the Standards Committee with conducting a review of the code of conduct and how the code should be upheld through sanctions. Without going into the detail of the Committee’s findings—because they are not yet ready to be published—I can tell the House that we have held numerous evidence sessions, including with the Leader of the House and with the Chief Whips from both the Government and the Opposition. We have also received evidence from similar bodies who regulate professions, and from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and senior members of the judiciary. All of that is feeding into our report, which will be made public later this year.

I would, though, like to share one or two of my personal views on a number of issues that have been raised. Having served on the Committee for some time now, I have concerns that the current set of rules and codes is complicated, although, I am afraid, not the system related to paid advocacy—that is very straightforward. As the Chair of the Standards Committee has just mentioned, a number of different bodies are involved in giving advice and investigating breaches. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority makes decisions on spending and can take action if claims are made incorrectly. The independent expert panel deals with bullying and harassment. Advice on using the portcullis and letterheads comes from the House authorities. The registrar gives advice on what can and should be recorded. The Standards Committee deals with some sanctions, but not others. It is confusing. I am a Member of the Standards Committee and I get confused. I touched earlier on the role of the commissioner as investigator and adviser. I do think that the system would benefit from some changes to separate those roles, with the commissioner investigating and legal counsel advising, so that we are absolutely certain that we are following the right legal roles.

I worry that good behaviour and time served in this House may work against someone if they are found to have breached the rules. We need to look carefully at that. I also worry that Members are prevented from speaking to anyone about cases raised against them. Indeed, they are specifically warned not to discuss their cases. Now, there is value in not having a war in the press, but it does not stop reporting. Being able to discuss cases would help to ensure that MPs are given the right support that they may need, particularly when dealing with vexatious claims.

Finally, I worry that Members do not recognise the value that lay members bring to the current Standards Committee. Those seven individuals provide a vital check on the Committee. The mix of both elected members and lay members with no political involvement ensures very robust challenge. The current mix of members brings genuine expertise, and I welcome their involvement and input.

I do believe that there is a need to look at the appeals process in order to check that process is being followed and that a Member has had a fair hearing, and that could be achieved within the current standards system, with some small changes to Standing Orders.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a most interesting contribution. His point about the involvement of the laity seems to me, as a former justice of the peace, to be very important. When it comes to the workings of the justices, the fact that the general public see an ordinary person like them involved gives them more faith in the judicial process. However, if we go down the wrong road—where the Committee on which he serves does not protect the reputation of Members—the faith of the public in those Members decreases, the turnout in elections drops because they will say, “It is simply not worth it”—and that is bad for democracy.

[Andy Carter]

I absolutely agree. This is about the integrity of this House and preserving democracy; it is really important.

As Members of Parliament, we are expected to uphold the values, principles and rules of the code of conduct that we all sign up to and that we should all act on, in accordance with the public trust that is placed in us. There will be times when it is right to make changes to the code and to update the Standing Orders. We should do so as one House, once we have considered all the options, to ensure that we protect the democracy and reputation of all who serve in this House.