Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Sarah Russell Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is extremely surprising that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this position, given that his party is generally associated with deregulation and removing bureaucracy. Does he not agree that the proposal he is describing would create additional bureaucracy around an independent organisation?

[Jesse Norman]

No, that is not true. The motions of this House are not traditionally regarded as a form of bureaucracy; in fact, in many ways they cut through bureaucracy, because they allow us to get to a democratically ratified decision very quickly and transparently. The trouble comes when decisions are made without that transparency, simplicity and speed of action, which is what we are opposed to.

As I have said, the present proposals draw a distinction between policy and procedure, and would mandate the assurance board to act on its own behalf in matters of procedure. Of course, the board contains only one Member of the House of Commons, and as I have said, that person is nominated rather than elected by the House. In other words, the assurance board potentially has wide-ranging and coercive powers, which are to be exercised almost entirely by people who are outside any direct framework of democratic accountability. It potentially has the power to overturn decisions that are ultimately made by an MP’s constituents at the ballot box. The House has rightly been concerned about the exercise of such powers for at least 400 years.

The motion, too, draws a distinction between policy and procedure. Of course, contrary to the suggestion that has been made, procedure includes important substantive matters. Indeed, Paul Kernaghan’s review set out an illustrative table of potential changes, which included changing whether somebody may be accompanied to an ICGS interview. As I have pointed out, this is an issue of powers as well as procedure; the assurance board has the ability to empower people who are under review by the ICGS to bring another person along to an interview, or to prevent them from doing so. In turn, this reflects a tacit or explicit policy decision about what may be fair or just under the circumstances. It is not simply a matter of procedure.

Mr Kernaghan’s review also included, as an illustration of what he called procedure, changing the timing of when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is notified of a misconduct complaint—whether that is before or after an initial assessment. Of course, that too reflects a tacit policy judgment about what a just process would be. Such tacit policy judgments show that there is no hard and fast distinction to be drawn between policy and procedure, and underline that these are not matters for officials—for unelected people—but for Members of this House acting through this House.

I remind the House that the ICGS sets rules not merely for members of Parliament, but for more than 15,000 passholders, and even—although this is slightly unclear, and in my judgment has not properly been resolved—for tourists and visitors to the Palace of Westminster. It is not accountable to any other body. Today’s decision to reject amendment (e)—of course, we are not moving that amendment, so that will be the decision—will be a one-off decision to give up powers of scrutiny, and it will be hard, if not impossible, to reverse that, once those powers are yielded. This is happening at a time when more and more decisions are being taken by people who are not accountable in any direct, genuinely democratic way, through the emergence of what people have often thought of as a kind of bureaucratic or legal sludge. That is absolutely deplorable. All that we in the Conservative party have said is that any decision of this type that is taken by people who are not Members of Parliament should be placed before this House, in line with its constitutional status and the Bill of Rights 1689. It has always been our procedure in this House not to recognise a superior, let alone a bureaucratic or non-democratically elected superior, and we should not do so on this occasion.