Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I remain to be convinced whether the Secretary of State understands the effect of a gender recognition certificate, but surely it is now apparent that he does not understand the concept of parliamentary accountability. For as long as I have been in this House, if the House were to be made aware of a Government document or publication of any sort, it would be placed in the House of Commons Library. It was not sent by email to individual named members. Surely all Members of this United Kingdom Parliament have an interest in knowing the Government position. There is no good reason for this unprecedented departure from previous processes.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This has been an absolute and utter mess. The Secretary of State was not forced to come to the House to answer an urgent question. He came voluntarily. It has been central to the Government’s case that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament conflicts with the Equality Act 2010. There is a statement of reasons as to why that is the case, but Members could not question him on it because he had not provided it. Now, he says that he will supply it through email.

Further to the point of order by the leader of the Scottish National party, may I insist that you, Mr Speaker, give us an opportunity to adjourn to that we can consider the statement properly? Then, we can come back and question the Secretary of State, who has to be at the Dispatch Box for the next debate, on the statements of reasons and why the UK Government have invoked a section 35 order against the legislation.

Post-Brexit Fisheries Management

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 13th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his reappointment to the Scotland Office—I know for certain he would have liked to be here to contribute to proceedings. Mr Mundell, there is always something comforting when you are looking down at us from above as we are debating issues such as this. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I know we are thin on the ground today, but we have managed to net enough Members and corral them into the Chamber to make a meaningful contribution to this ongoing debate. It is a really important one.

I welcome the Minister to his place. He and I seem to be forever bound to each other. We thought we had escaped the clutches of one another with the Leader of the House gig on a Thursday morning, but here we are on a Thursday afternoon discussing fisheries. I always enjoy working with the Minister, and I look forward to working with him as we go forward to consider the important issues that are now part of his brief.

I want to speak to what this debate is about: it is about Brexit. I want to discuss exactly where we are and where Brexit has left this important sector. I again pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group. It was a fantastic report—it was excellent. It captured some of the key discussions, debates and issues around Brexit. I thought it made some really meaty and robust conclusions and recommendations, which, if implemented, would go a long way to addressing some of the problems we have. It was a report that found a sector experiencing financial difficulties as a result of Brexit and facing ongoing uncertainties regarding its future, with closures and reductions in operations affecting real businesses.

The fishing industry is a sector that has been utterly pummelled by the impacts and effects of Brexit—effects and issues that are still being played out and experienced by real businesses and people who owe their living to the sea and to the catches that they bring in. I want to look at where we are. I want to assess what Brexit has done to the sector and where we go from here, because we have real difficulties and challenges. I remember the “sea of opportunity”. The one thing we were told about, again and again, was the opportunities there would be for the fishing industry.

We all looked hard for winners in Brexit, particularly those of us who were not all that sold on the idea. We all looked, across all the industries and sectors, for who would win from this situation. The one sector that was always presented to us as the beneficiary—the great winner—when it came to Brexit was the fishing sector. I do not think people are saying that any more. I think that the sea of opportunity has become an ocean of tears, with shipwrecks off a deflated and defeated industry, and other boats quickly bailing out the water just to stay afloat. That is the reality of the sector several years down the line, because of Brexit.

Of all the sectors that have been impacted and hurt by Brexit, the fishing industry must be ranked as one of the highest. Indeed, I would go as far as to suggest that the fishing industry has experienced probably the greatest betrayal when it comes to Brexit policy, in terms of where it has been left compared with its initial condition.

Pre-Brexit, things were not great; of course they were not. There were years and years of decline in the fishing sector, some of it due to the EU and the common fisheries policy. We have to acknowledge and accept that it was not a particularly great experience for the UK fishing sector, given some of the issues around the CFP. But by God, the way those Brexiteers so carefully designed a case around the frustrations felt by generations of fishermen was quite extraordinary and they managed to list them as their key champions when putting the case for Brexit.

This is an industry that had been in decline for decades, which the Brexiteers grabbed on to so successfully and so profoundly. The Brexiteers were able, quite skilfully and carefully, to blame all the woes in the fishing sector on the EU; it was all the fault of the EU and the CFP. All of us will remember the glorious picture of a future with increased catches, doing away with regulation and red tape, and opportunities that they said were just waiting for us when we became an “independent coastal state”. Do people remember that phrase: the “independent coastal state”? They said we would be independent, when there are international waters, where arrangements and agreements have to be met. The illusion the Brexiteers sold to fishermen right across the United Kingdom will go down as one of the greatest deceptions and betrayals that any sector or industry has experienced during the past few decades.

Fishers and fishing communities have every right to be furious, as they increasingly now are, with this UK Government for what was sold to them. Like the worst snake-oil salesmen, the Brexiteers offered an elixir that they claimed would cure a condition; in fact, it only ended up making the patient much worse. This Brexit was, in fact, as rotten as the dead fish that Nigel Farage threw into the Thames in his attempt to mislead and enlist an industry and a sector to his particularly malign and malevolent cause, because it was all just rubbish—we know that now.

The fishing industry should have known what was in store, because it had been there before—it had been at the hands of a Conservative Government promising the earth to it. We need only go back to the days of our youth in the 1970s, Mr Mundell, to find that when we joined the Common Market, as it was then, the fishing industry was expendable; it was something that could easily be set aside for the greater ambitions of the UK Government’s priorities and strategic intentions.

It continues to be expendable now. The Brexiteers could not care less about the fishing industry; it was a minor detail when it came to their greater ideological intention to take the UK out of the EU. That is exactly what it was to them; this is an industry that they really could not care about at all.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have said it often enough, that I felt that the fishing industry was used in the course of the Brexit debate. I could understand the reasons why the industry wanted to believe the things that it was promised; he has touched upon some of those reasons. Nevertheless, we are where we are now and we do not have Brussels to blame any more; we have to look to our own resources.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration that there are so many things that we could do better now for ourselves, but that we are not doing? I touched on one thing—gill netting. I will offer him another, which is Marine Scotland’s practice of always picking the low-hanging fruit—that is, the Scottish vessels—while leaving Spanish vessels fishing in UK waters, relatively unscathed in terms of interruption and intervention. Why are we not doing more to protect our own fleet? We have nobody else to blame now.

[Pete Wishart]

I am really grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I want to come on to those points and to address some of the issues he raised. He is right: there is nobody to blame any more. For years and years, it was all the fault of Brussels, the EU and the CFP; now the Minister is exclusively in charge of the details of UK fisheries. But it is the right hon. Gentleman’s debate—I did not call it “Brexit and the fishing industry”; he called it that. He did not spend all that much time discussing the impacts of Brexit on the fishing industry, so maybe I can fill that gap for him and explain a little about how we got here and where we are. He is right about what we do; it is really important that we get this right. We cannot compound misery on misery, because that is exactly what has happened just now.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising that point. I was going to reserve that for later in my speech, but I will address it now because it is important. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland addressed it and he deserves and requires an answer to that, which I am more than happy to give him. It was not a press release; I think it was a written question by his colleague in the Scottish Parliament to the Minister, Mairi Gougeon, about gill netting in Scotland—he will correct me if I am wrong. [Interruption.] He did not quite quote it all, which is all I will say ever so gently to the right hon. Gentleman. He was accurate in the way he gave it; as reported in the response he gave, gill netting is a legitimate business. However, the thing he did not mention in his contribution is that the Scottish Government are considering this. They are looking at exactly what is happening in their waters.

I am new to this role, but I am not new to my colleagues and their instincts. I say to the right hon. Gentleman: be patient. Wait until the consultation has concluded, because we are looking at this just now. I am pretty certain, if we come back in a few months once this has been considered and we have looked at all the evidence, he may be satisfied with the outcome of these considerations. Be patient. I know Green colleagues in Shetland are standing with Liberal Democrats in order to have this addressed; this is an all-party situation. He is right that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I know my colleagues, so we will wait and see what happens. Hopefully, we will be able to put a big smile on his face when he talks about these issues in the future.

I will get back to Brexit, because that is what the debate is about. I know there is lots of interest in other issues, in things to look forward to and things we could be doing, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that we should have a debate about Brexit and that is what we should do. I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement, so let’s do it. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for UK fishing, just as it has been an unmitigated disaster for all the other sectors that have to operate in the real world of international markets, partnerships and the harsh reality of doing trade across borders.

We know this has been difficult; we have seen it in the report by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, which chronicles these issues only too well. We hear in the report of falling incomes as a result of increasing costs and the decreasing value of catches; we see reduced opportunities, increased paperwork and markets more or less closed. He is right that we can address the labour issues, and it is important that we do. I know it is not in the Minister’s purview and remit, but the labour issues are acute, and they must certainly be addressed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) consistently raises issues about crews in some of our island communities. This is absolutely pressing.

I do not know if the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has detected this, but I am beginning to get a sense that the Government are a bit conflicted about this issue. They are beginning to realise that, for all this talk about growth zones, investment zones and growing the economy, they actually need people to do it. I think they are beginning to understand, “Right, if we’re going to have a successful economy, and we have to protect and develop sectors such as fishing, we need people to come in and do it. We have not got them just now.”

Perhaps I am just being naive, Mr Mundell, but I hope not. You will probably say, “Quite typically, you are, Mr Wishart.” I hope I am not. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this when he speaks, but I am detecting that they are getting it through their heads that people have to come in to do this work because we cannot find indigenous labour, particularly in constituencies like that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my own when it comes to things such as hospitality, hotels and farming. We need people to come to the UK to do the tasks that people living in our communities will no longer do. The only way to do that is to get people to come in from abroad.

[Mr Carmichael]

Actually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he was as surprised as I was to hear the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) say that we needed people to come in to help with the broadband roll-out. The other sector that I should have touched on but did not—that was remiss of me—is the processing sector, which is absolutely desperate for labour to process the fish. We can catch every fish in the sea if we want, but it will not earn us any money if we do not have people to process it and sell it onwards. Through the hon. Gentleman, I might add to the question of labour for the processing sector to the list that the Minister has to take to the Home Office. It is a serious and pressing matter.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. He is absolutely spot on. I have the great pleasure and privilege of chairing the Scottish Affairs Committee and one of our first inquiries in this Session of Parliament was on labour shortages. I think food processing was identified as one of the first sectors that started to experience real difficulties. It needs to be addressed. There is most definitely a problem there.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for the all-party group’s report. I know that people will be watching this afternoon’s proceedings with great interest, and I recommend that they look at this very good report and its recommendations.

It is not just the all-party parliamentary fisheries group that is coming to the same conclusion after looking at the issues—it is everybody. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has produced a report on the economics of the UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU for fishing industries. Its general conclusion is that there are very few winners and an awful lot of losers. The NFFO talks of a £64 million loss to the industry each year because of Brexit. In Scotland, we are trying to come to terms with that loss. We are trying to process it and see how we can start to address it with the limited powers we have in a funding envelope that is obviously not what we feel is required to deal with some of these issues. We have the bulk of the United Kingdom’s fishing industry. It is an imperative, important and iconic industry for us in Scotland. It brings 15,000 high-value jobs to some of our more diverse and hard-pressed rural and coastal communities.

Our seafood industry is world renowned. When I was in Singapore a few years ago, Scottish salmon opened up a sector that was bringing in all this seafood from Scotland. They could not shift it fast enough. Such was the provenance, idea and suggestion of Scottish produce that people wanted it—they wanted to be part of it. We now have a worldwide reputation as a renowned exporter of high-quality foodstuffs, in particular when it comes to our fish.

In 2021, fish and seafood exports were valued at £1 billion, which was 60% of all Scottish food exports. I know that trade has been dreadful with the EU, but prior to Brexit, things were relatively good between 2016 and 2019. We had annual exports of £618 million, with the bumper year for that in 2019—just before this disaster started to kick in. Now, Brexit trade barriers are expected to cause output in the fishing sector to be 30% lower than it was pre-Brexit. As well as the damage to EU markets, Brexit has ensured that the Scottish industry has access to fewer staple fish species than under the CFP.

We will wait to see what happens in 2026. I know we are in the transition period just now, but there is a great deal of unhappiness. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked us to think about the future. As we move forward, we have to start thinking about what will happen in 2026, when the transitional arrangements are lifted. I hope the UK Government get up to speed with their negotiating position and are able to argue more adequately on behalf of Scottish fishing.

What are the UK Government doing in response? They are doing several things. The total funding envelope was about £100 million across the whole sector to try to mitigate some of the damage. That £100 million seems quite generous and will certainly assist a number of fishers and processors in the sector, but Ireland—independent, small Ireland, with a smaller population than Scotland—has just secured €335 million to be distributed across its whole seafood sector and coastal communities in order to meet some of the difficulties and challenges of Brexit. They have difficulties that are not even close to the difficulties that we have because of Brexit, but that is the funding they get. The irony of all ironies is that €225 million of that funding is coming from EU funding in the form of the Brexit adjustment reserve.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I always enjoy listening to, must recognise that if the EU can do that for small, independent Ireland, surely we should be doing better in the UK for our fishing sector, which has taken the majority of the hit. Yes, Mr Mundell, I will stray into the constitutional debate—you know me, I like to bring up this little point. Does this not say something about the relative positions and conditions of independent Ireland in the EU and dependent Scotland as part of the United Kingdom? Independent Ireland is supported to the hilt, backed by the EU and part of a partnership, whereas I do not even know what the figure would be for Scotland—perhaps the Minister could clarify that. I tried to find exactly how much Scotland got out of it, but it will be peanuts compared with what independent Ireland will get from the European Union, which his Government dragged us out of against our national collective will, for which we will have to endure the consequences years down the line.

With Scotland not being independent, being subject to a Brexit that we did not vote for and without the EU support that Ireland has, the Scottish Government do what they can, but they cannot do all that much. We have limited powers. We have powers over fisheries, and there are things we can do. Again, I hope the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be satisfied with some of the deliberations we will have on these issues. We have put out a new fund to the seafood sector. We have the blue vision in Scotland and hope to do all we can for marine protection. We have given £37.75 million of funding to support our fishers. That is out of a budget that, again, is peanuts in comparison with Ireland, but we will do everything that we can.

I will come back to gill netting and some of the bigger issues around trawling. I do not know about everybody else, but my mailbag has been besieged by correspondence from people who are concerned by what they are observing, particularly the activities of supertrawlers in our marine protected areas. My constituents are upset and anxious about what they are observing and they are writing to me to raise this, which I am doing, because they want action. They want fast and decisive action because they do not like what they are observing. Our constituents have been concerned about the activities of supertrawlers for a number of years. We will have a consultation and we will take decisive action, and it is now up to the UK Government to try to do what they can. We are expanding the number of marine protected areas in Scotland. We will put another one in place over the next few years. People expect marine protected areas to do what they say on the tin: to protect the marine environment. They do not want to see supertrawlers operating in these areas, and I hope the UK Government get on top of this.

Where do we go from here? We are where we are. We have Brexit. The all-party parliamentary group report makes some reasonable suggestions about the way forward. The main UK parties—representatives of which are present today—often say that they are the parties of making Brexit work. I do not know how you make Brexit work, but one day somebody will tell me how something like this can be a positive. I have yet to see where that happens or how it comes down the line. Our ambition will always be to return to the European Union—to return, when it comes to fisheries, to a safe harbour with a set of consistent rules that apply across the EU.

I am terribly excited about my new role as the SNP spokesperson. Before I had it, I observed the disastrous negotiations and discussions that we have had as a new, independent coastal state. There were hours of inconclusive debate and negotiations with small nations such as Norway and the Faroe Islands. We now have to debate and negotiate with the EU, which comes prepared with all sorts of materials, background and experience. We come prepared to more or less give in before we even get anywhere.

I have no great idea that things are going to get better. The Minister may be able to convince me that there is some sort of future with Brexit, but I hope that in the next few years Scotland will make the decision to do these things on our own and start the process to get back into the European Union, where my nation belongs and where I know it will be properly supported.

Access to Cash in Scotland

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 14th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks—I am sure we will be back to business as normal on Monday, when the Committee meets again.

The hon. Gentleman’s substantive points were very useful. I agree that banks need to properly explain to local communities the reasons behind closures. I remember a protest in Aberfeldy. It takes a lot to get people protesting in Aberfeldy, but they protested in large numbers about the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch there. Communities get very upset about this issue, and they look for reasons and answers. They want to understand why banks in the heart of the community have been closed, and more could be done to explain that.

There is, of course, a code of conduct that the banks are expected to fall in line with, but I think most people find that insufficient. Again, there may be a role for the Government to intervene and to make sure that we have proper thresholds and guidelines for where banks are to be closed. The previous Government had legislation about the last branch in town, but that seems to have gone and is no longer a feature of the Government’s thinking about this issue. The Minister is listening, and that may be something that he might want to think about as we look forward to the Bill being introduced.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Like others, I offer the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) all the deference that he deserves.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said that the banks are “morally bankrupt”. Let us not forget that, but for the taxpayer, they would also be financially bankrupt. We have recently seen the withdrawal of the Bank of Scotland from Stromness in my constituency—the last bank in town. If we now hear that there is a rush of banks seeking to avoid the incoming legislation, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that that is simply acting in bad faith, which the Government should not be tolerating and in respect of which they should be acting?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I are the “Faithers of the Hoose”, given that we were both elected in 2001. [Interruption.] I know that he signed in before me, but I still claim that I was elected before him—we will fight that one out at some point in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we are all concerned about the intervening period and what happens now to the legislation being introduced. There are several things that I believe the Government could do. A “cease and desist” instruction could be enacted to tell banks very clearly that there is an expectation that no branches should be closed in the period between now and the legislation being introduced. The Government could make it retrospective and say that the clear intention of the legislation is that there should be no branches closed until the Bill has been considered. Again, this is something that could be done in advance of the legislation being introduced. It is really a matter for the Government, but I think the Minister is hearing very clearly.

Looking around the Chamber, most of us represent rural or semi-rural constituencies, and we have this very clear problem. We remain greatly concerned about what happens now. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there now seems to be a rush to close branches ahead of the legislation coming in. It is almost perverse that the banks would choose to do so, knowing that we are coming to some sort of solution about how this matter could be taken forward. I really hope that something can be done in the intervening weeks and months.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am thrilled to be called to speak now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I start by setting something straight? There is an answer to the West Lothian question. Tam Dalyell and I actually came up with two answers some 17 years ago. One, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, is the Harthill services, and the second is salt and sauce. I will leave it to the House to determine which one is the correct answer.

What an utter humiliation this is for the Government. A flagship policy of the 2015 manifesto will soon be nothing more than a footnote in future constitutional history books, and, remember, it is just another Tory policy disaster. God knows what they were thinking about when they introduced this some six years ago. They were consumed with the notion that we, the unkempt Caledonian hordes, were somehow stopping them securing the democratic outcomes that they desired—us, the 59 Scots MPs out of 650 MPs, needed to be constrained and curtailed. EVEL was just about the worst solution to a problem that did not even exist.

Never before has a procedure come to this House that has divided the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes. Not only did it do that, it did it by nationality and by geography. It is a procedure that barely anyone understands, that is a burden to the management and administration of the business of this House, that is entirely unnecessary, and that produces almost unprecedented resentment. Something that it will be remembered for more than anything else is what it has done for the cause of English devolved governance. This was the first serious attempt to create some sort of forum for English democracy. We actually agree with them. They do deserve their English Parliament. They should always get the outcomes that they want and deserve. We have even got a neat, practical and elegant solution to that, but, of course, they will not even start to look at that. There are myriad solutions to resolving this within the precious Union. The thing is that they could not be bothered doing the work. They could not be bothered rolling up their sleeves and designing a Parliament of their own. They decided instead to come here and to use the national UK Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for this doomed experiment. Imagine a quasi-English Parliament squatting here in the national Parliament. What an absolute and utter disgrace.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not have time to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

It satisfied absolutely no one. All it did was infuriate Scotland. Instead of securing the near federalism that was promised, Scotland instead saw its MPs become second-class Members in the Parliament that they had just been invited to lead. There were signs in the Division Lobby saying, “England only.” They would have been better saying, “Scots out.” That is what the Government did with this procedure.

The Government knew it would never work. From the first moment when they suggested this nonsense, we have told them again and again that it was madness and that, at some point, they would be here—as they are this evening—to withdraw it. Now under pressure from the SNP, EVEL is to be abandoned. This is a spectacular victory for the Scottish National party, and I congratulate all my hon. Friends on bringing down this nonsense. This is one victory that we have secured this week in the United Kingdom and, by God, we are going to celebrate like it is 1966. Believe me, we will be banging on about this for the next 55 years and we will enjoy every minute of it.

There is a part of me that will miss the entertainment of it all and the laughs that it gave us. It was designed to quell this tartan menace, but I ended up making the most contributions in the Legislative Grand Committee. With 57 contributions, not only was I the most committed and dedicated Member of the English Parliament but I beat all the English Members combined two times over.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I have had the great privilege of having served in all the various ICGS working groups since their inception, and it is particularly good to be here today to say a few remarks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on what hopefully will be the conclusion and the implementation of all the recommendations that have been made to the ICGS.

As I look around the Chamber today, I can see several colleagues who have served on the various incarnations of the working group, and I pay tribute to them for their contribution and dedication. In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whose vision, leadership and guidance at the inception of all this helped to guide us through this process, so I thank her for her contribution today.

Today, we are here to bring the ICGS in line with the third recommendation of Dame Laura Cox. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves of what Dame Laura Cox actually said about this House in her most damning report and the litany of issues that she uncovered. She talked of an

“excessively hierarchical, ‘command and control’ and deferential culture, which has no place in any organisation in the 21st century.”

That is what Dame Laura said.

It is two years since Dame Laura Cox presented her report to the House. It was in October 2018 that the Commission overwhelmingly agreed to all three of her recommendations. We have heard that the first two have been implemented. One was, of course, the behaviour code, which has been put in place. The second was looking at historical cases, and today we are considering the third recommendation. Let us just remind ourselves what that is. It is to put in place the mechanism whereby complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament would be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament will play no part. For this to happen, the Commission set up a working group to put together how we should respond to this and to bring this House in line with that recommendation. That was met with the Commission’s unanimous agreement to establish the independent expert panel to replace the Committee on Standards in considering cases brought under the ICGS.

At our last meeting of the Commission, we confirmed our support for the implementation of the independent expert panel, and we asked for this matter to be brought before the House. The new panel will determine sanction in cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have the power to invoke sanctions. As we have heard, this could include the suspension or expulsion of a Member of Parliament. These serious cases will be referred to the panel and will be considered by a sub-panel of three independent experts, supported by specialist advice. When decided and concluded, a Member of the House of Commons Commission, probably me, will move a motion to allow the House to implement the sanction determined by the IEP. Lastly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Commission agreed that the House would be asked to consider whether there should be a time-limited debate in these circumstances, and that is where we are today, with the motions in the name of the Leader of the House.

The motions accurately reflect the considerations of the House of Commons Commission, and its members are pretty much in line and in step with what Dame Laura Cox expects in the implementation of her third recommendation. That is, of course, until we get to paragraph D(1) in motion 5, where the Leader of the House makes that provision for the debate. If it is helpful to the House, what the Commission decided in our consideration of this issue was that we would let the House decide whether it wanted a debate. I think the expectation was that a couple of motions would be brought by the Leader of the House, which would give us flexibility in our options. Instead, we have this one determination of the Leader of the House, which is that we are now invited to a yes or no. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that the Commission was almost split down the middle when we were considering this matter, and that was why we felt it was appropriate that the House should decide and determine this.

My view as a Member of the House who has been involved in the ICGS for the past two and a half years is that what the Leader of the House suggests in paragraph D(1) breaks practically every principle and the whole spirit of the third Cox recommendation. It is little wonder that there is profound disappointment among House staff today. Such are the concerns that Dame Laura herself has felt the need to respond to some of the representations from staff. She notes the fears that a debate could result in a complainant’s confidentiality being compromised and speaks of

“the chilling effect that this will undoubtedly have on complainants reporting cases of harassment or bullying”.

There are real concerns that MPs will debate the findings of an independent judgment on one of their colleagues while protected by privilege, with staff having no equivalent platform. That cannot be right.

The Leader of the House seeks to assure us with motion 6, but we cannot escape the overwhelming conclusion that Members and complainants could be identified inadvertently in a debate. Colleagues and friends of somebody who has been complained against will feel the temptation to get up there and defend them.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is drilling down into an important part of the issue, which is about procedural fairness. It goes to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Once we got into a debate, it is inevitable that we would get into the merits of the issue; how, procedurally, could we expect not to?

[Pete Wishart]

I think that concern has been expressed by the House staff after looking at the motions presented by the Leader of the House today.

As was mentioned by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House, the House should make the ultimate determination about the expulsion or suspension of a Member of Parliament. That is right, but it should not be done through a debate. That is why I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I really hope that the rest of the House will too.

It is disappointing that this little issue has presented itself after we have come all this way with full agreement, full consensus and the involvement of the House staff, and are just at the point of doing this. I say to the House: stick with the principles of Laura Cox and support the amendment this evening.