Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I strongly support what my hon. Friend has said. We all wish Team GB the very best in the forthcoming Olympics in Paris, particularly Dan and the rest of the swimming team. We wish all our competing athletes all the very best.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
When in opposition, the present Administration made some efforts to criticise the then Conservative Government’s record on animal welfare. The King’s Speech, of which the right hon. Lady indicates she is so proud, contains not one word relating to animal welfare. Was that a deliberate omission, or a careless and uninterested oversight, and when might we have a Bill to outlaw the proceeds of trophy hunting?
Lucy Powell
I am glad to answer that question. The right hon. Member will be aware that outlawing trophy hunting was absolutely in our manifesto, which we have been resoundingly elected to deliver. We have set out our King’s Speech for this first Session; it is not for the whole Parliament. Given how much we need to do, we have had to prioritise what we are doing in this Session, especially to deliver on our missions and those first steps we promised the country we would deliver, but I am sure that will come forward in due course.
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Penny Mordaunt)
With permission, I will make a short business statement.
Following the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I am sure the House will understand that discussions continue on the business ahead of the Dissolution of this Parliament. With that in mind, tomorrow’s business will include consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill. The House will then be asked to await any Lords messages. The House will also be asked to agree to sit on Friday 24 May. Subject to the progress of business, Parliament is expected to prorogue on Friday 24 May. I will make a further business statement to update the House tomorrow morning.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we proceed, the Leader of the House has made it plain that she will make a further business statement tomorrow morning. Of course, I will take a contribution from the Opposition spokesperson, but this is a very narrow statement indeed. I do not expect a business questions session after this.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Leader of the House for that emergency business statement—I think many across the country will thank her too, although I am not sure many on the Government Benches will—that Parliament will be dissolved for a general election. The country has been crying out for change, and this election means that people can finally vote for it. It is a chance to change this chaotic, weak and incompetent Conservative Government, who have crashed our economy, hit working people with sky-high mortgages and left the NHS and public services in crisis. Labour is ready to deliver that change, and change this country for the better.
With Parliament prorogued on Friday, can the Leader of the House tell us which Bills will be brought forward for wash-up this week? There are some Bills that we support that could receive Royal Assent, should the Government choose to do so. With so little time remaining, it seems unlikely that many of their flagship Bills will now become law. What the Leader of the House and her Government seem to be saying today is that the vast majority of the King’s Speech programme will not be realised, including important issues such as the compensation scheme for victims of the infected blood scandal, committed to just this week. I want to reiterate that Labour stands ready to do whatever is necessary to pass the Victims and Prisoners Bill with these important amendments this week. I look forward to what may be our final business questions tomorrow.
Penny Mordaunt
As the shadow Leader of the House will know, discussions are ongoing through the usual channels. I thank her for her offer of help on these important Bills. Certainly, we would like our legislative programme to get through and if the Opposition were minded to assist us on those important Bills, I am sure that could be achieved.
I will be making a further business statement tomorrow morning. I reassure people who will be affected by, for example, the infected blood issue that we will make that statement, and the sentiments that were expressed at this Dispatch Box earlier this week still stand. I think that all parties want that and other important legislation to get through. The Whips are discussing these matters and I will update the House tomorrow morning. I also look forward to our exchange tomorrow.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Mr Brine has indicated that he wishes to raise a question that is probably relevant to a number of Members. I will call Mr Brine, but after that I will call these proceedings to a close on the understanding that a statement will be made tomorrow.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Other than providing time for the Tobacco and Vapes Bill—she knows that matters greatly to me and that there is widespread support for it across the House, including from both Front Benches—does the Leader of the House plan to allow time for Members who are retiring from the House to make “matters to be raised before the Dissolution” speeches?
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order arising directly from matters that have been raised at business questions. For that reason and that reason alone, I am prepared to take it now in order to ensure that the Leader of the House is here.
Lucy Powell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to clarify something she said in response to me earlier when I asked about the allegations relating to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). She suggested that some allegations had now been referred to the police. Was she referring to these allegations or to allegations regarding other Members? If it was the latter, I think people outside this place have been given the wrong impression.
Mr Deputy Speaker
As the hon. Lady has indicated, although that is a point of order, it is not strictly one for the Chair. Given that the Leader of the House wishes to respond, I am quite prepared to permit that as well.
Penny Mordaunt
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify. The hon. Lady was asking about a raft of allegations, starting with those relating to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). My understanding is that that particular issue is being looked into by three police forces. I am not aware of any other police investigations.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I asked a question relating to Gibraltar, and I feel that it would be remiss of me not to bring the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and mention that I visited Gibraltar on behalf of the Gibraltar Government several years ago.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Again, that is not strictly a matter of order for the Chair, but it is now a matter of record, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I also thank the Leader of the House and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. He will know, as I have stated it before, that while reorganising the scheduling of such debates is a matter for the Backbench Business Committee, we will be giving additional time to ensure that it happens. I was particularly keen to mention that specific debate, as I know Members from across the House would be very interested in taking part. I will also ensure that we flag his concerns with regard to his constituent with the Department for Work and Pensions, as those departmental questions have just happened.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Finally, and thanking him for his patience, I call Peter Aldous.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will conclude on the point that, I think, four other Members have made, including the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), with whom I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women. We have had the ombudsman’s report this morning. It makes grim reading for the DWP in relation to its maladministration over many years. Its findings on recommendations for compensation may disappoint many women, but the main issue coming out of the report is the need to lay the report before Parliament due to the low confidence that the ombudsman has in the Government coming up with a quick solution.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for her assurance that a DWP Minister will make a statement as soon as possible. May I urge her to convey to the Department the need to go much, much further much more quickly to put in place a mechanism, working with Parliament, to ensure that this injustice, which has gone on for many years, is remedied as quickly as possible?
Penny Mordaunt
I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that I will raise this matter with the Department. Indeed, I will be doing so on behalf of all Members who have spoken about it this morning. I thank him for all the work he has done with the all-party parliamentary group and on this issue specifically. As I said in my previous answers, I am sure the Secretary of State will want to update the House at the earliest occasion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their presence throughout what has been a very lengthy session.
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for again raising these incredibly important matters, as he does diligently every single week. He will know that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) does great work in this important area as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, so I will make sure not only that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has heard what he has said today, but that my hon. Friend has as well, given her role. No one should experience discrimination for exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will know that we take the matter very seriously, and we will work through the UN to promote those rights and raise his concerns on every occasion.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their participation this morning. Will Members leaving please do so quickly and quietly?
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on 16 October to ask whether the Department would consider reopening the state-of-the-art Rutherford cancer centre in Bomarsund in my constituency, given the lengthy—and lengthening—cancer waiting lists in my area of the north-east. I received a letter from the Department only this week—three months later—suggesting that:
“To operate as NHS cancer centres, the Rutherford sites need to meet NHS specifications and we are advised by NHS England that they do not.”
The reality is that other Rutherford cancer units, in Taunton and in Clatterbridge in Liverpool, have joint partnerships with the NHS. The Rutherford centre in Bomarsund has had referrals from the NHS, so this is absolute humbug. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on fairness and equity in the frequency of diagnostics, cancer treatment and so on across the country, not forgetting the north-east of England?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Before I call the Leader of the House, I should say that a significant number of Members wish to participate, and there is some very serious business to follow, so I would be grateful if Members on both sides of the House asked questions and did not make speeches.
Penny Mordaunt
As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) knows, the Department of Health and Social Care oversees the national cancer plan. Although I do not know the background to his constituency issue, I suspect it will be a matter for local commissioners. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard what he has said today, but he may need to direct the issue to local commissioners.
Correcting the Record
Roger Gale Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Sunderland
I thank the hon. Member for his kind remarks. I have a problem, as I am sure we all do, with falsehoods and false statements, and it is incumbent on all of us in this place to make sure that we are accurate with our facts and not disingenuous with how we use them. I acknowledge his remarks and agree with them. Again, we will put to the Committee in due course how we take that forward. Finally, we will work also with the House administration, which will write to the Committee in the coming weeks with a timeline for implementation.
Honesty, transparency and credibility in politics do matter, as we have heard, and this proposal is the right thing to do for everyone whom we serve. I therefore commend this report to the House.
Retirement of the Clerk of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
May I, on behalf of Sir John, thank everybody for their contributions? He thinks the world of Lady Susan and their two sons, Matthew and Timothy, but I have to tell you that the real eye-opener for everyone, if you ever talk about it, is his grandson Solly—the apple of his eye. We wish him well, and we wish Tom Goldsmith great success as the new Clerk.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That Mr Speaker be requested to convey to Sir John Benger KCB, on his retirement from the office of Clerk of the House, this House’s gratitude for his long and distinguished service, for his wise contribution to the development of the procedure of the House during testing times and in the face of the unprecedented challenge of the pandemic, for his engaged and inclusive leadership and his professionalism in the discharge of his duties as head of the House Administration, and for the courteous and helpful advice always given to individual honourable Members.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we proceed, I hope that the House will not mind if I abuse my position by expressing my own appreciation for the work of Sir John Benger, and for his friendship, his courtesy and his wisdom. It is greatly appreciated.
Business of the House
Roger Gale Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
We did have a debate on those matters—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman attended it. He will know that the Standards Committee looked recently at this matter and, after much deliberation, felt very much that, as we have had these conversations ad infinitum in this place, what he is suggesting is not the best course of action. I direct him to the Standards Committee report; it made other recommendations, which the House adopted, and in it he can read why that suggestion was not supported by the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman notified the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) that he was going to raise that matter.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Among other services, post offices across Cheadle handle currency transactions and parcel postage, and they have even picked up the pieces after bank closures left customers in the lurch. Now they are concerned about the impact on customers should the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract be lost. For people who need to renew their driving licence or vehicle tax, or get a permit to drive abroad, access to a post office is essential, particularly for the digitally excluded. Post offices are at the heart of all our communities, so will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on the value of post offices and how we can ensure their long-term sustainability?
Penny Mordaunt
On behalf of us all, I thank the hon. Gentleman for using business questions to shine a spotlight on some of the world’s most persecuted people, especially women and girls. The Baha’i women and girls he refers to showed incredible bravery in the ordeal that they faced. As he knows, we have announced eight packages of human rights sanctions on Iran since October last year, and more recently, the Foreign Secretary launched the international women and girls strategy in March of this year. We will continue to stand up and speak out for these incredibly brave people.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for their presence throughout the entirety of the statement on business.
Members of Parliament: Risk-based Exclusion
Roger Gale Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Before we start the debate, I wish to say something about references to other Members. This issue understandably generates strong feelings, but may I remind the House of the words of Erskine May?
“Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.”
That means, among other things, that it is not orderly to criticise the conduct of a Member, unless the motion debated directly addresses that conduct. This motion does not do so, and so such criticism would not be orderly.
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry, but I am going to conclude because I am trying the patience of colleagues. I will be happy to respond to any points on behalf of the Commission this afternoon and I thank all Members and House staff who have helped to bring forward these proposals. I want to reassure Members that these matters are for the House to decide and that all members of the Commission are here to listen this afternoon.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Let me take us back five years, to when Dame Laura Cox told us that this place has
“a culture of…deference, subservience, acquiescence and silence, in which bullying, harassment and sexual harassment have been able to thrive and have long been tolerated and concealed.”
The House of Commons staff who bravely came forward at the time, shared their stories and gave evidence to Dame Laura felt for the first time that they were being listened to and that they had not spoken out in vain. There was a sense that we were beginning a process that would oversee real change in the culture of this place. Five years on, we must ask ourselves: can we be confident that the change in culture that the Cox report said was absolutely necessary has happened?
I came to this place to fight for better working conditions for everyone in this country, including people who work here. It is only right that we should aim to be one of the best places to work. As the shadow Leader of the House said, we should be an exemplar of good employment practice. Frankly, it took too long to introduce the independent complaints and grievance process, and the experience of it to date suggests it has not reached the stage of development where it carries everyone’s confidence. There are definitely lessons to be learned from the experience so far, but we are heading in the right direction. The issue being discussed tonight is part of that journey towards this becoming, as far as is possible, a safe and secure place of work, just as we would want for all our constituents and just as every other employer should be.
A number of hon. Members have talked about how we should be following the lead of every other workplace: if there is a risk in the workplace, the employer has a duty to take steps to minimise that risk. As far as I can see, the only reason there is even a debate about this is not that Members are some special category of people who deserve to be treated differently, but that there is a clear question being ventilated tonight about striking the right balance between ensuring that people are able to work in a safe environment free from fear, and ensuring that people who are here to represent their constituents are not disenfranchised by being forced to leave the estate.
The fact that we are not voting on the proposals tonight shows that there are issues still and that we do not yet have our own house in order on this question, but it is vital that we address it. As the report states, the great majority of Members who responded do not oppose the principle of excluding Members for allegations of violent or sexual acts. Just two Members who responded to the consultation disagreed, citing the principle of innocent until proven guilty. We have heard that mentioned a number of times in the debate, but I think people are conflating a non-prejudicial suspension with a finding of guilt.
In every workplace it is quite possible to suspend someone without having a finding of guilt attached to them. We are not going to be replacing the role of the court. I believe that the risk assessment process and the adjudication panel are as good a way as possible to deal with that question of risk. The panel will have ample opportunity to weed out vexatious complaints—another concern that has been raised. That is another reason why we should accept that the threshold for involvement can be lower than a formal charge.
It is not clear from the report what opportunity there will be for the Member affected to make representations. The Leader of the House suggested that there would be such an opportunity, but I did not see that set out in the formal process in the report. It would be a good thing for the Member affected to have that opportunity to make representation and the adjudication panel would probably be the right stage for that. Of course, if the person who is being complained against can make representations, I would say the victim should be able to do so as well.
I certainly do not think a vote or a debate in this Chamber on the question would be appropriate. We cannot possibly have an informed debate on something of that level of detail without risking a breach of confidentiality, as has been mentioned, and indeed possible inadvertent breaches of sub judice rules. This is not the right forum for matters of that nature to be debated or discussed; they should be left to a private panel away from the glare of the Chamber.
I would presume that, if a Member did have an opportunity to make a representation to the panel, they would deny any wrongdoing. I would hope that, unlike with the ICGS, that denial would not be seen as a reason to double down on punishment. It should be accepted that a denial in the context of a “without prejudice” suspension, coupled with engagement, which we would expect from the Member, could actually lead to a pragmatic solution being found, which would not always necessarily mean a complete exclusion from the estate. It is clear from the report that that is possible.
I know that some will consider that the threshold for intervention is too low if charges have not been brought, but that is the threshold for the process to begin. I think we have probably all agreed that currently police investigations take far too long, but it is simply too long for something that serious to be left hanging in the air. We cannot possibly determine in this Chamber tonight every set of circumstances in which expulsion would be appropriate, so it is right that we set out a process to deal with that and for that process to be robust and thorough enough that we can have confidence it will be fair on all.
However, the key is what the report says about flexibility. The panel will have flexibility to deal with the circumstances of the cases that come before it, and that seems to me the right way to do it. As I have already mentioned, that could include mitigations falling short of total exclusion. The process would be sensitive to the facts of each individual case—that is what would happen in every workplace, and it is what we should do here.
As we have said, an exclusion from the estate does not mean that the Member is completely excluded from the process. They could vote by proxy, and they would be able to submit written questions or write directly to Ministers on particular issues. It is hard to envisage any circumstances in which those measures would not be available. We need to think about the processes that the independent complaints scheme has dealt with so far. The speed and the quality of those investigations needs to be dramatically improved. That is something that we can deal with here; we can set performance targets for it. It is not in anyone’s interest—not the victim, not the accused, not the reputation of this House—for complaints to take 12 to 18 months to reach their conclusions. The police will take as long as they need to, but we should have a far greater grip on how long it takes for internal complaints to be dealt with.
I remind Members of what Dame Laura Cox envisaged for internal investigations. She said that they should
“be conducted by someone whose status, independence, experience and expertise are beyond question,”
and that
“it has to be a rigorous process, a transparent process and one that is seen to be fair to both sides.”
I do not think that we are quite there on that. I will not go into detail on the flaws that I have seen in investigations, but we should be in no doubt that this serious matter must be looked at again, and I welcome the commitment to doing so.
On the proposals before us, I echo what other Members have said: we need a vote on them shortly. We need to iron out the differences of opinion, ideally before the summer recess. As employers here, we have a duty of care towards everyone in this place, and we do not want to be seen as falling short because we are still arguing about the niceties of process. We would not accept that in any other workplace. We have to set the standard on these things, not drag our heels.
Thangam Debbonaire
It is a pleasure to follow my good and hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I have been touched by the thoughtfulness with which he has addressed this question privately and publicly. He has given me wise counsel on many occasions, and I am grateful to him for reminding us that the ICGS process came from a good place and that there is still a lot of work to do. I agree and hope that he will take part in the review that is due to take place later this year—his contribution will be extremely valuable. I am also glad of his reminder that many of us came here to fight for safe and secure workplaces. In the Labour and trade union movements, that is really part of our DNA, and I think that was a good tone to end on.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) clearly has many concerns. I hope that, if he takes time to listen to the responses and the opening speeches from the Leader of the House, me, and other members of the Commission, we can talk about how his concerns might be dealt with.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), brought up the fact that this is not about judging innocence or guilt; it is a risk-mitigation process. I know that others will still not be convinced, but I hope that they will take the time to listen to all sorts of views, as we have done this evening. I am particularly pleased that we have had an incredibly respectful and thoughtful debate. I think it far better that we do that and listen to each other despite our differences, even if we disagree robustly.
I am grateful to my friends from the Commission—my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock)—for adding their support to the work that has gone on and for rightly paying tribute to the House staff, who have helped us, particularly Sarah Petit, who has put in a really long shift.
The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) started out by saying that he thought he agreed with us on about 95% of the proposals, and went on to say the many ways in which he did not. Again, he made some very thoughtful points and it was interesting to see the difference between him and the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The Procedure Committee said that as a body it did not like the use of proxies, but the hon. Member for Bracknell said that he disagreed and I think it is a good sign that we are all willing to listen to one another’s point of view.
Several Members made the point that if a Member is excluded without a proxy vote, there is a democratic deficit and that it is not the fault of the voters if a Member has voluntarily or non-voluntarily had to exempt themselves. We have dealt with non-voluntary absence due to illness. This is different, but in neither case is it the fault of the voters. Putting that proxy vote in place is critical.
I am particularly grateful to my colleague the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for bringing her experience of the police to this place. It has been invaluable and is a really important part of the debate. She identified for us the need for political parties not to compete on how well or not they deal with complaints but to try to help each other raise our game collectively. She also mentioned the role of Whips, and I am grateful to her for doing so. I was a Whip for many years, and the role is often misunderstood. Whips put in so much work to support people in complex situations, and they do it behind the scenes. I have witnessed Whips putting in a solid shift for months and months while at the same time being criticised for not doing so; I knew that that was not the case. I certainly saw that happen more than once in previous Parliaments. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for what she does as a Whip in her party and to Whips on both sides of the House for what I know they do.
I want to finish with the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant). It was helpful that he familiarised himself with the subject to a great extent—it is also great when he brings in a quote from Tom Lehrer, and that was a pleasure. He is right that we need to consider the language, and I am going to glance at the Leader of the House at this point. He highlighted the term “adjudication”, but also the term “exclusion”, which has been mentioned by many Members. Having “exclusion” in the title has perhaps led Members to think that that was the entire point—the A to Z—and it is not. That was a good challenge, thoughtfully made.
My hon. Friend also challenged us on the various processes. He and the Leader of the House mentioned the need for a review of the many, many, many processes we now have, which he said are not necessarily understood by Members, let alone the public. That is right, and I am therefore glad that we might see some progress on that. I also salute him for bringing up the impact of incorrect media stories, however they may occur. He and his friend from the Standards Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the impact of stories such as the one that claimed that 56 MPs were under ICGS investigation. I hate to repeat it, because I know that it was not the case, but it is important that we explore—perhaps as a Commission but perhaps with other bodies in Parliament—how we rebut such stories without coming across as defensive, which I also would not want to do. That has to be done thoughtfully, but I like the fact that my hon. Friend reflected on the principles that underpin what we are trying to do, which are very important to me.
Finally, when the Leader of the House introduced the debate, she introduced a couple of new initiatives she is bringing about and it is excellent to see a Leader of the House taking this responsibility seriously. We all do that as Commissioners, but she is doing it in her role as Leader of the House. I look forward to discussing the issue with her further. She has been extremely collaborative and consultative with other Members from different parties on this process so far and I look forward to hearing more from her in due course.
I want to close by saying that I did not expect the debate be so measured and thoughtful, and I was wrong. I am glad I was wrong, because we still have strong feelings. I know that there are people in this Chamber who disagree strongly and I am grateful to everybody for showing that although we may not necessarily agree, we can disagree in a respectful way.
I end with the challenge from the right hon. Member for East Antrim to remember that to walk through these doors is an honour and privilege and that every day we should live up to that. Would that it were so and that we did not have to discuss this issue, but that is a good place for us to end. Much as I have disagreed with him on many of the points he has made, I respect the way he has made them and I value the fact that he has reminded us that every single day we walk through this place is a privilege, not a right, and that we do it on behalf of our constituents.
Penny Mordaunt
I quite agree with that point, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that gumption needs to be applied to these cases.
We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) for putting this issue in perspective: it is not the case that all Members of Parliament are rotters. Indeed, in many cases where people’s behaviour has fallen short, there are often reasons behind it to do with an individual’s mental health or some other issues that they are facing. He is right to remember those points.
I want now to turn to the tough stuff. The speeches of the shadow Leader of the House and some of the interventions made on her, and the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) got to the heart of the issue about an individual’s human rights. Is it right that a decision should be taken by an adjudication panel on the basis of a risk assessment without that Member having a say, stating their case or being able to appeal against that decision?
I want to explain why the Commission has put forward that proposal. It was based on a strong principle that no action taken during the safeguarding process should compromise the investigation and the criminal proceedings. That is why it was not deemed appropriate that someone should have the right of reply to that adjudication panel. The Commission should take that issue away and look at it. It was very much envisaged that people would be acting on such things as bail conditions and other things that would help inform that risk assessment.
The other point I would make is that although we are looking at a narrow process in isolation today, that process does not take place in isolation. One would imagine that there will be conversations with the individual’s Whip, advising them what they think they should do in a particular situation. Clearly someone can have representation during the investigation and the criminal process. This is an area that the Commission should focus on, and it has been helpful hearing Members’ comments today.
The second area in which the Commission needs to consider comments made today is with regard to the bar for when the process is triggered. Several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), have spoken about charge versus any other part of the criminal process. I say to all Members who have those concerns that I was of that school of thought. I was an advocate for charge precisely because I felt that the threshold for this process needed to be high. However, it became apparent during our discussions—again, I am not seeking to persuade my hon. Friend, but just to explain why the proposal developed—that the question we were being asked to address was about risk. It is perfectly possible for an individual to be a serious risk earlier than the point of charge, so the debate as it was originally framed around arrest versus charge was not deemed appropriate. Again, given what we have heard this evening, we should focus more on this area.
I have nearly finished my remarks. To comment on the comparison that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) made with the armed forces, my shift as Minister for the Armed Forces saw the aftermath of the Brecon three. One thing that I learned from that was that it is difficult to get people to focus on a joint service publication and health and safety rules, but it is easy to get people to focus on taking care of their mates and their duty of care to people who they work with. That is why it is so important that we focus on culture change, as well as the minutiae of particular issues.
The third area where there is a consensus of concern is around the proxy voting situation. I very much feel that Members, whether they are off the estate as the result of the process we are discussing today or through voluntary exclusion because they deem it in everyone’s interest to do that, should not be denied the opportunity to vote in this place. That is important, not only because of the impact on them, but because of the impact on their constituents. I recently visited the constituency of a Member in that situation, and the impact it has, partly because of the length of time investigations take, is devastating to a community when it loses that voice and is disempowered. I understand the concerns raised today, and particularly the concerns of the Procedure Committee, which I thank for the work it has been doing on that.
I want to thank my Commission colleagues who have spoken today—the hon. Members for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), as well as the shadow Leader of the House, with whom I will continue to work closely on all these matters. The speech by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), with her police experience, was extremely helpful. She is right to encourage us to pursue these matters, not leave them in the “too tough” in-tray.
To sum up as best I can for colleagues, I think that the main areas of concern are proxy voting, the human rights aspects, the issue of a right of reply, particularly to the adjudication panel, and whether we should consider the threshold of a charge. I know that the Commission will look at all the points raised by hon. Members and take them seriously, and we will of course come back to the House in good time with good information. In the meantime, I know I speak for all members of the Commission when I say that our doors are always open if people want to raise issues that they may not have felt able to raise on the Floor of the House today.
I think this was a good debate. I hope it has reassured people, if not given them all of the answers, and I look forward to working with all colleagues on these important matters in the weeks to come.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I began this evening’s debate with a caution, so may I now thank all hon. Members for the dignity and the courtesy with which they have conducted this debate—a fact that I am sure will be widely reported in the press? I also thank both the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House for remaining in the Chamber for the entire debate, which I know is hugely appreciated by colleagues.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the House of Commons Commission Report, Risk-based exclusion of MPs: consultation response and proposals, HC 1396.