Conduct Committee

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the report and support its recommendations. The commissioners as well as the committee are doing a good job, and in particular the chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has been exceptional and will be a very hard act to follow.

That brings me to one of the recommendations on the rotation of Members. I believe that the automatic rotation of Members on all committees on a three-year basis is generally unhelpful to Members but a gift to the establishment. However, on the Conduct Committee in particular, it is especially damaging to the work of the committee, as outlined in the report, and I hope that the Procedure and Privileges Committee will accept the recommendation that it should be rescinded.

I also strongly support the committee’s view that it would not be appropriate to widen the application of the code beyond our parliamentary activities. In particular, it rejects the suggestion that it should be extended generally to posts on social media. I welcome this, as I know that there have been mischievous complaints against me and others by SNP activists, who I have designated as “cybernats”, because they disagree with my point of view. The irony is that my posts have all avoided any personal comments, whereas the responses have been full of abuse and have not dealt with the issues raised. So I hope that the committee will be careful in relation to any exceptions—and on this occasion I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, and indeed with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Now there is an unusual occasion. In fact, I might be the friend that the noble Baroness was speaking about right at the end there.

All through the code and report, there is the correct presumption that our membership here is a part-time activity, regrettably. The House is not a Second Chamber with properly resourced full-time Members able to deal effectively with all the legislation and hold the Government to account, as is the case in Canada, France and many other places, where the senates do that. But that is an issue for another day. However, the nature of this House makes it strange that we have a code covering Members’ staff when there is no specific provision in the House for us to employ anyone. Although some of us do use our part-time allowance to do so, it is not easily done.

Lastly, I express my support for the committee’s recommendations on keeping the inquisitorial system. The introduction of an adversarial system would not only deter victims from making legitimate complaints but significantly lengthen the process, turning it into another gold mine for the lawyers. Indeed, I wondered whether the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, should have declared his interest when he moved his amendment. Incidentally, I was also wondering whether some of the Members who spoke in Monday’s debate on hereditary Peers were in breach of paragraph 14(b) of the code by not declaring their interest in doing so—but no doubt that can be looked at.

I conclude—well within the time, to please my Chief Whip, who I always try to please—by restating my support for the committee’s recommendations and hoping that they will be agreed unanimously.