Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to the motion and specifically to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.

As the Leader of the House has said, successive Administrations, in collaboration with the House, have supported across this Chamber the development of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. It was initiated in 2017 under the then Conservative Government, and it has always been developed on a collaborative and cross-party basis.

In that context, it is surprising, disappointing and a pity that the Government should table a motion on the business of the House when it has not been agreed in that collaborative and cross-party way. Indeed, they are whipping their own Members; that is highly unusual for a motion on the business of the House. Our position has always been that these matters should be worked through together, through the usual channels and with other senior bodies of the House in a spirit of consensus. In that spirit, I will not press the amendment in my name to a vote.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am very concerned that the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers would fly in the face of the body’s independence, so I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will not be pushing it to a vote. Will he confirm whether his party supports an independent process and the ICGS? If his party were in government, would it make changes to the scheme or even scrap it?

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the question. Of course, it is a Conservative body in the first instance, developed on a cross-party basis. As far as I am aware, there is no desire in my party to make it anything other than a continuously independent body to suppress and prevent the abuses that occurred before it was brought into being—abuses with which we are all familiar.

In many ways, the ICGS has not been without its problems—it is in the nature of the House’s deliberations and the secrecy and privacy associated with these things that we do not always hear about those problems—but broadly speaking, it has been successful. That means, however, that in the context of the point of conflict between my side of the House and those on the Leader of the House’s side, there is no problem that the motion as drafted seeks to address and cure. Let me explain in more detail.

The motion frames the issue as supposedly not one of policy, but of procedure. As it sets out, the assurance board has many members. It is not simply composed of parliamentarians; it includes the Clerk Assistants of both Houses, Members of both Houses—but on a nominated basis, rather than elected—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a lay member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and members of the human resources teams of both Houses. The proposal before us is that this body should be able to set rules for Members of this House without the House itself having any say in the matter, so this is not about the nature of the board; it is about the question of what say the House has over rules that are being set for everyone affected by the ICGS, but for Members of this House in particular.

It is nonsense to suggest that laying a motion before the House, as we have suggested, would be difficult or need to involve any delay. Our position is extremely simple: there should be a motion before the House to approve or disapprove any decision taken by the assurance board. Such motions can be laid before the House in a very short period of time—literally in a day or two, and perhaps even overnight in some circumstances. There can be no proper suggestion of a delay in the implementation of decisions made by the assurance board, and therefore no reason—at least in my judgment and that of my colleagues—why this should not be a matter for the House to decide.

Business of the House

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

For the hon. Lady’s 90-years-young constituents such issues are incredibly vital and important. We must ensure that the transition to digital is completely inclusive, and that those who rely on landline and analogue systems are also supported, especially when they live in a rural community such as the one she describes. I am sure BT will have heard her question, and if not I will ensure that it has and that it gets a proper service back to those constituents who need it.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

My original question was answered in the clear reply from the Leader of the House to the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), but do not worry—I brought a back-up.

Thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we have £50 million of investment for Eden Project Morecambe, and yesterday I spoke to Ministers about the importance of renewing our high streets. May we have a debate on how we ensure that local businesses and small and medium-sized enterprises thrive in the context of large new attractions such as Eden Project Morecambe?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that refreshing question—normally as politicians we like to repeat questions that have come from others, so she has definitely got a gold star for that. As someone who spent many childhood holidays in Morecambe, I am very familiar with it, and I am delighted that the Eden Project, other programmes, and the money that the Government have brought in will revitalise that gorgeous seaside town. I am sure she will be able to raise such issues in forthcoming questions on many occasions.