Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I can confirm that my hon. Friend’s constituency is indeed beautiful, having recently visited with her, as well as for a family holiday. She is absolutely right that the proliferation of holiday lets is becoming a real challenge for tourist hotspots like hers. This Government are taking steps. We have some measures in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but further conversations will be taken forward, and I am sure that we will work with her and others on that.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

On Tuesday, a written statement was published at 12 noon that announced that three hours later, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and Afghan relocations and assistance policy were to close with immediate effect. That comes six weeks after an assurance that the scheme would continue for the present, so that we could keep the promises made to the people of Afghanistan. Can we have a statement in this place, so that we can properly understand the reasons for the decision being made so quickly; how we are communicating with Afghans in hiding, often in third countries like Pakistan; and what will happen to those applications still in the system?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry that the hon. Member did not feel that we were forthcoming enough on that matter, and I will ensure that she gets an update on it. We constantly keep these schemes under review, and we have to take into account a whole range of issues when considering whether to close or extend them. Those decisions and conversations are ongoing, but I will ensure that she gets an update.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

As I have said, the Government remain very much focused on fulfilling our commitment to the Hillsborough families—and indeed to many other families affected by injustices and scandals—and to bringing forward and enacting a Hillsborough law, which of course includes a duty of candour. Most importantly, we need to ensure that we get the legislation right, and that it reflects the full range of concerns and experiences and meets the expectations of the families. We are working on the Bill at pace, but we will take whatever time is necessary to work collaboratively and get the legislation right.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Transferring from legacy benefits to universal credit seems to be overly complicated, and makes it difficult for my constituents not to find themselves in debt. As an MP, I feel that my hands are tied. We are seeing constituents coming forward with rent arrears and in very difficult situations. May we have a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions on what is being done to make the transfer easier? I am concerned that people are falling into deep poverty and facing civil actions in the absence of better Government support.

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry to hear that some of the hon. Lady’s constituents are facing challenges moving from legacy benefits to universal credit. She will be aware that the Government made changes to the debt aspect of universal credit, which put money in the pockets of many people in that situation, but I will ensure that she gets a full update on where we are up to.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Terri. We want to see more women getting involved in sport, not only competing at the highest level like Terri but taking part, because it is really good for their life, wellbeing, health and education.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

My constituent was due to have her radio teleswitch meter replaced on Thursday after three years of wrangling with her supplier, but it did not happen. We know that the RTS switch-off is happening at the end of June, and at the current rate in Scotland it will take 380 days for all the meters to be replaced. Can we get a statement from the Government on an issue that is fast becoming a crisis?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. It has been raised with me on a number of occasions by the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) as well. No one should be left without a signal, and that is what should be happening, but I will ensure that the hon. Lady and other Members are kept updated, because this is an urgent matter.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I can assure my hon. Friend that, given my responsibility for the business of this House, I am well aware of the need to ratify the treaty and all that that involves. We are committed to doing so, and I can assure him that we will do so in good time.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Last week the Permanent Court of Arbitration allowed the UK to uphold the ban on sand eel fishing around the UK, including around the Isle of May in my constituency. The ban is doing so much to support the native puffins there. It also affirmed that policies banning sand eel fishing are based on scientific evidence. However, the impact of the remainder of the judgment is unclear, with different rulings in relation to English seas that muddy the waters considerably. Will the Government bring forward a debate in Government time so that the House can fully hear and consider their response to this ruling?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sorry to hear about the impact that the ruling is having on fishing in the hon. Lady’s area. I am not aware that the House is to be told of any developments, but the Government will ensure that she gets a full ministerial reply, and if the House needs to be updated, it will be.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right: access to culture and sport is at the heart of thriving communities and happy places and people, and I am sorry to hear about what is happening in Kettering. As she will know, we have a manifesto commitment to replace the community right to bid with a strengthened right to buy assets of community value, and I think that would help in cases such as this. The subject of access to local culture and sport is raised with me regularly during business questions, and although the Backbench Business Committee’s time is oversubscribed, I think this would make an extremely good subject for a Backbench Business debate.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I should first declare an interest, as chair of the Scotch whisky all-party parliamentary group. The Scotch whisky industry is obviously a heavy user of UK-produced glass, and is trying hard to increase its recycling. There is cross- party support for the extended producer responsibility measures—I was a member of the Delegated Legislation Committee that considered them—but concern has been expressed to the APPG about the practicalities of extended producer responsibility, and the risk of its becoming a tax, rather than bringing about the circular economy that we all want. Speaking as a Scottish MP who saw the collapse of the deposit return scheme in Scotland and has heard the concerns expressed by businesses, may I ask for a debate in Government time on ensuring that we secure the right outcomes from extended producer responsibility?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising these important issues for the Scottish whisky industry and producers of glass in this country. We had a debate on the Floor of the House about that scheme recently, and I know that some of those issues were raised then, but I will ensure that Ministers have heard her concerns about extended producer liability and will get her a full response.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend is right: foreign money and foreign donations have no place in UK politics and are prohibited under current law, but the existing legislation may need to be tightened. As he will know, we have a manifesto commitment to look at donations to political parties, and we will be introducing a Bill on elections, probably in the next Session.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Yesterday, along with many other Members, I attended an oversubscribed debate in Westminster Hall led by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) on compensation for WASPI women. It is clear there was no consensus on the Government side in relation to the outcome of the Government’s decision. Given that the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman sent the report to Parliament for Parliament to decide, when will the Government provide time for a debate and a vote?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Member for that question. As she said, a debate did take place yesterday, and there are many mechanisms for debates to be brought forward in the Chamber or Westminster Hall. I know it is of great disappointment to people that the Government have taken this decision, which was quite a specific one about that report. Many women were communicated with over that time, and an apology was issued, but we did not feel that the compensation being proposed was proportionate or would be a fair use of public funds at this time.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the community fire safety group at Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service. The alternative provision that he highlights is crucial in helping children who might otherwise be taken out of school, or perhaps have nowhere else to go, to get the support they need so that they can flourish in life.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) about the closure of the community ownership fund. East Neuk community in my constituency made a 50-page application, with the support of the Development Trusts Association Scotland, but was told to wait until after the Budget. I heard the Leader of the House’s response to the hon. Member, but may we have a debate in Government time so that community assets in Scotland and other parts of the UK do not suffer?

[Lucy Powell]

I hear that more than one Member— I know there have been others this week—is interested in the future of the community ownership fund. As I said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), this Government are committed to the principle of community ownership and to making it easier for communities to take ownership of assets. I hear their calls. There are oral questions to the Department coming up next week. If the answers are not satisfactorily resolved, I will certainly look at a debate.

Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair—congratulations on your election.

It is important to be here today to debate what we can do to improve politics. The public who sent us here expect that. We know that something needs to be done and I hope that the Government will live up to their aspiration to offer change. Last week, the Leader of the House was kind enough to mention our previous work together on the exclusion ban. I am pleased to confirm that I, too, look forward to continuing those cross-party efforts in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) will speak about second jobs later, so I will focus my remarks on modernisation and the Modernisation Committee.

The Modernisation Committee that the previous Labour Government set up was not uncontroversial and we should recognise that the Committee will not have an elected Chair; it will be chaired by the Leader of the House. However, as an Opposition party member, I have had positive engagement with the Leader of the House. It is important to ensure that the Committee acts in the best interests of the House and does not supersede the remit of other Committees, such as the Committee on Standards, which has lay members at its heart.

The motion is about restoring trust in this place and in our system. We know that that is needed just by looking at engagement in the recent general election. Voter turnout overall was only 59.8%—only six in 10 registered voters either thought it was worth engaging with our democratic system or could do so. In many constituencies, the proportion was even lower—in some, it was as little as four in 10. It is not hard to see why, when we look back at the last Parliament.

I was a new Member in 2019. We came in straight off the back of the divisions of Brexit. Normal life and Parliament were then paused during the height of the pandemic. Just a matter of weeks after we were back in this place following the second lockdown, the former Member for North Shropshire, Owen Paterson, was found by the House to have breached the rules on lobbying, and the then Government tried to change the rules in relation to House business to allow him to escape censure.

Following that, I secured an emergency debate on standards under Standing Order No. 24. For new Members’ information, in order to secure an emergency debate, 40 Members must stand up in support of the application. I am pleased to say that, given the increase in Liberal Democrat numbers, I could muster the numbers from my own party now, but in 2021 I was pleased that MPs from the now Government as well as from the Opposition supported my application for a debate on standards. Looking back at that debate in preparation for today, I saw that I closed with the following remarks:

“This is about trust. It is about trust in the Government that they will represent the House and not the Government in House business, and it is about trust in us as our constituents’ representatives. That trust, once eroded, is very difficult to regain. Trust in our politics has been eroded in this past week. That includes all of us here in this House. On behalf of all our constituents, we must do all in our power to do our best to rebuild that trust as we take the next steps on standards.” —[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 81-2.]

Sadly, that did not happen, despite our best efforts. Personally, I am proud that my amendment to our Standing Orders to stop MPs voting on their own censure motions, as the former Member for North Shropshire did, was passed. With the support of the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who is in her place, the amendment to the exclusion motion was passed earlier this year. I hope that that decision by the House sent a message about the seriousness with which we in this place view safe- guarding. Despite some improvements, we still had rule breaking—and, indeed, law breaking, bullying, sexual harassment, and a string of serious questions about conflicts of interest. It is important to recognise that we are all tarnished by that brush.

The Government’s proposal is also about making this place a modern workplace. It is easy for people to forget that this is not just a place where politics and policy happen, but a place of work—not just for us here in the Chamber, but for hundreds if not thousands of MPs’ staff, as well as the House staff who support us. Indeed, as we start this new Parliament with a new intake of MPs, the churn of staff will be significant.

Websites advertising political vacancies are currently overflowing with opportunities, but I cannot help but wonder after the past few years whether people will want to work here. Can this be seen as an attractive workplace, where people can be not only safe, but secure, and where they can forge a meaningful career? I am sure that we all know people who we think were capable—in fact more capable than ourselves—of being effective MPs, but who took the decision not to put themselves forward for election. On that, I hope the Leader of the House will agree, perhaps as part of the Committee’s work or just generally, to implement the Jo Cox Civility Commission recommendations in relation to the abuse of elected representatives.

I have the pleasure of being Chief Whip to 71 MPs, having welcomed 57 new colleagues to these Benches. I know that the bad behaviour of some caused a lack of trust in all of us. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House commit the Modernisation Committee to implementing the independent review of the ICGS published in May. I want to draw the House’s attention to the third recommendation, which says that if someone makes a complaint to a party about something that falls under the remit of the scheme, the party has to pass it on to the ICGS to be dealt with, rather than attempting to resolve it internally.

I am very aware that the violins for Whips are very tiny, but those Whips do have a difficult role to play in providing pastoral care and looking at discipline. For me, it makes perfect sense to ensure that, where there has been inappropriate behaviour, there is a guarantee of an independent review. I am pleased to say that what is proposed in this recommendation is already part of the new Liberal Democrat parliamentary party Standing Orders, and I would be happy to sign a public declaration accordingly on that basis.

I also urge the Leader of the House to commit to implementing the next steps recommended by the Speaker’s Conference, which reported last year. I had the privilege of sitting on the Conference and can attest to the time and cross-party work that went into that report. These packages of changes together would create something much closer to a modern human resources system, which will benefit staff and MPs. I think the public do accept that MPs are different, in that we are not employees, but they also expect us to adopt modern HR practices where we possibly can.

The underlying point for me, and something that I hope our new MPs can take on board among the excitement and honour of being in this place, is this: our jobs are unusual, but that does not make us special or different when it comes to upholding basic standards. I say that as a former police officer who was also not an employee during that time. It does not give us free rein to treat others poorly. We must not break the rules; in fact, we ought to be aspiring to a higher standard—to be exemplary—because of these unusual and wonderful jobs that we get to hold and do for our constituents.

We also need to look at the practices and support in place to allow Members to carry out their work effectively. I was disappointed to hear, for example, that the nursery in Parliament can offer places only from 2026. Given that increasing numbers of new Members with family responsibilities are coming here, we need to ensure that we give people the support to carry out that really important job to the best of our abilities.

Let me return now to the motion and the question of what the Modernisation Committee should be considering. Modernisation is not just about standards and behaviour and making this a 21st century workplace, but about making this a modern system fit for policy decisions to be made for the benefits of our constituents. We want a workplace that ensures that democracy works.

The first proposal that I ask the Leader of the House to consider might not be in her party’s best interests as it wants to power through its first 100 days, but in the spirit of putting our democracy first, I urge her to be open to revisiting the Wright reforms and reviewing the determination of House time. The 2009 report recommended that a House Business Committee, made up on a Cross-Bench basis, be able to decide how much time is given to scrutinising Government legislation. That may sound boring and technical, but it could be revolutionary. The Government would still be able to set the agenda and bring forward their manifesto and their legislation, but they could not tell us in the Opposition how much time we should take to properly scrutinise things. The Wright reforms were aimed at ending sleaze and making Parliament and the role of Parliament more meaningful. Those goals remain ever more relevant today.

Implementing this last change from the Wright reforms would make MPs more powerful in representing their constituents. It would connect us in a meaningful way, and allow the public to see that MPs are working on their behalf. It would certainly improve debate—something that I am hoping will improve in this new Parliament. It would make us more open and allow the public to truly understand the nuances and difficulties that have to be handled in legislation. Indeed, in that way, it would also benefit the Government. A modern Chamber of representatives also needs to be fairly elected. How many times have we heard someone sigh on the radio or in the pub and moan that politicians are all the same—that nothing ever changes, and that one candidate will inevitably win, so there is no point in even engaging?

There has been so much optimism in Parliament since the general election and new Members have been returned. I want to ensure that we spread that optimism out to each and every voter—a sense that they matter and that politics and Parliament are for them. A fair voting process is the absolute basic step that we need to take. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) earlier in the debate. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats have, for the first time ever, delivered a number of MPs that reflects the vote share that they had in the general election. We will await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s report on the most recent election before we draw any conclusions, especially when it comes to voter turnout.

In conclusion, my party and I look forward to engaging further with the Modernisation Committee, and urge the Leader of the House not to narrow its remit. Modernising this place is a big job, but it is surely a worthwhile one. If we can get that right, we rebuild the trust that underpins our democracy, and make the laws and policies that come from this place all the better for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I now call Jack Abbott to make his maiden speech.

Business of the House

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her place as the Labour MP for where we are today. She raises an important matter that should be covered by the children’s wellbeing Bill that was announced in the King’s Speech, which will look at admission and place planning, and giving local authorities a greater ability to do that than they currently have. The next Education questions are due not long after we return from the summer recess, so she might want to raise this important matter then.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I welcome the new Financial Conduct Authority rules on access to cash. One key thing that they set out is that banks should not close their branches before an assessment has taken place and new alternatives have been put in place. In Cupar, we have already seen the closure of the Bank of Scotland, and problems over the summer regarding the replenishment of the remaining cash machines. May we have a debate in Government time about the FCA rules, and how we ensure that communities that have already lost those services get the replacement assessments they are supposed to get?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that important question. Having sat through business questions many times in the last Parliament, I know that she raised this topic consistently. The disappearance of banks from our high streets was raised with many of us during the election campaign, which is why this Government are committed to having banking hubs across the country, and to a coherent plan for town centre regeneration. I will consider her request for a debate and pass it on to the relevant Minister.

Risk-based Exclusion

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I start by referencing the foreword to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme report published today, for which I commend Sir Paul Kernaghan. Paragraph 3 says:

“A scheme like the ICGS must recognise the different working cultures and constitutional requirements, whilst at the same time contribute to a non-negotiable objective of helping to deliver a modern environment in which everyone is respected and valued. The Royal Military Police’s motto is Exemplo Ducemus—‘By example shall we lead’. I have taken the view that Parliament’s internal arrangements should also, as far as possible, lead by example. I have consciously sought to make recommendations that are both practical and reflect the highest possible standards.”

I am conscious that that is talking about the ICGS, which is a different process, but sometimes, when we end up talking about dates such as 1340 and 1648, I am not sure people necessarily think that is relevant to today.

My amendments are about safeguarding. I am grateful that the Chair of the Procedure Committee, although she disagrees with me, recognises that that is a key point of contention in relation to the motion we are considering today. When we last discussed these proposals in a general debate, we were talking about proposals in relation to arrest. They have now been changed to charge, and my amendment simply seeks to get the view of the House on what is the right point. I appreciate there is a balance to that.

On the question of consultation mechanisms, we have talked about evidence given to the Procedure Committee, the Standards Committee and the Commission, but I stand here as a member of the fourth party in this House and it is interesting that I have had support for my amendment from other smaller parties as well. It is important, when we are debating these matters, that all voices are heard.

People are always very quick to point out that we are not employees. Indeed, as a former police officer, I was also not an employee then; I was appointed and I swore an oath to serve. However, we do have responsibilities to our own employees as an employer, and I should mention I was a member of the Speaker’s Conference in that regard. I think the public take a view of our employment status, in that they recognise we are not employees, but I agree with those hon. Members who have made the point that as far as possible we should be trying to align ourselves with modern workplaces and practices and with the laws that we pass here in respect of them.

Where MP’s terms and conditions have caused issues in recent years, it is when we have in this place perhaps over-emphasised ourselves as being exceptional and unique, and forgotten that we are not here just simply to represent our constituents and peers; we are representatives of those constituents and peers. We are those people too, and if we do not encourage people to think about MPs that way, we will never get the diversity and representation in this place that we want. I think the public are less concerned about us exercising our rights since Cromwell, and we should be thinking about how we minimise the impact on representation.

I agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) that exclusion is one of a series of measures contained in this motion, and may be applicable only in a very small number of situations. It is about risk and it is about safeguarding. I refer to an email I received from Ken Gall from the trade unions here in the Commons—I think the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) referred to it as well:

“Following the publication of the Angiolini report, senior House officials including the Speaker met with the Deputy Commissioner of the Met Police…to discuss the fact that Wayne Couzens…had worked on the parliamentary estate.”

He notes that the House released the following statement:

“The PaDP leadership also now automatically informs Parliament’s Director of Security about serious disciplinary issues, and any officer accused of gross misconduct is automatically removed from working on the parliamentary estate.”

I think all of us would argue that was proportionate, necessary and a risk-based response. However, we are in danger of saying that the risk posed by a man accused of serious sexual offenses is unacceptable when that man is a police officer, but not when the man in question is an MP.

I also want to refer to the comments made by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). As part of the safeguarding assessment that we make, we should think about the full circumstances of the case. It may be appropriate to take a different approach when the offence is in relation to somebody who works in the estate, as opposed to someone external.

Why arrest and not charge? Because I want our practices to align with those in other workplaces. It is important to remember that the majority of people in this workplace are not MPs or Members of the other place; they are members of staff. This is their workplace too. My proposal also aligns with the Government’s own external statements of intent, particularly in relation to violence against women and girls. Again, Ken Gall points out that the Government’s response to the Government Equalities Office consultation on sexual harassment in the workplace referred to adequate legal protections and prompting employers to take action to prevent harassment. I am not sure how failing to exclude from the workplace a man arrested on suspicion of rape would not fall into the category of an employer not taking all reasonable steps to protect women. The House is not an employer of MPs, but it is an employer of others.

In my remaining minute, I will talk about the role of the Whips and the politicisation of the process. Voluntary exclusion happens now. The higher the bar is, the more politicisation of the process there will be. The right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg) talked about knowing from a panel exactly who it was. Frankly, we know the people who have voluntarily excluded themselves from the estate on that basis. Having the bar too high would negate some of the safeguarding measures that we might try to take.

Let me say, as a former police officer—the only one taking part in this debate, I think—that arrest on suspicion does not take place just on the basis of an allegation. Yes, some vexatious complaints occur, but what message do we send from this place if we say that our concerns on this are more important than safeguarding? Balance, as the Chair of the Procedure Committee said, is important.

Several members of staff have come up to me today to thank me for tabling my amendment. I ask those who are thinking of voting against it to think about the message they would be sending outwith this place.

[Sir Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg), as I so often do. This is a very unsatisfactory process, to say the least. I endorse everything that he said.

We are where we are in terms of this particular motion, and I will mention a couple of things in it, relating mainly to the debate about whether or not the proposed Standing Order should apply at arrest or at charge. I very much agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley). She was right to say that the measure would find the right balance by applying at charge, partly because, as has been said, our constituents have a right to be represented in the House of Commons—we should not forget that—but also because of the time these things take. Someone being deprived of being here because they have been arrested even though they have done nothing wrong is not just a hypothetical; it has actually happened, and they were excluded from here for a substantial amount of time. Are we completely blind to those situations? We should be completely aware of that, and we must not allow it to happen again.

I must say that I think the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) was unusually naive in his view about what might happen if we had the situation at arrest. He seems to think that if we had a panel meeting at arrest, exclusion would be a last resort, and that a whole suite of other things would be gone through before we got to that. To be perfectly honest, he has been here long enough to know that that is an absolute load of old tripe. He knows full well that the moment somebody is arrested, the panel would say, “We must be risk-averse,” and the person would be excluded straightaway. And I guarantee to him that if they were not excluded straightaway, an awful lot of people in this House would demand that they be excluded straightaway on the basis of arrest. If he does not think that is the case, I am afraid he is completely and utterly out of touch with what goes on.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, given that I have just spoken. What assessment does he think the Whips make on that basis?

[Sir Philip Davies]

Well, the point is that that is a voluntary process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset has made clear, if somebody feels that that is not a suitable process, they can come in here. This is about us formally excluding people from here. That is a very different issue altogether—one that we should not take lightly; and one that, I suspect, is being taken too lightly.