Select Committee Chairs: Period of Leave
Alberto Costa Excerpts(6 days, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I support the motions in the name of the Leader of the House and thank him for his opening remarks.
The motion on privileges asks this House to agree with the findings in the report by the Committee of Privileges, of which I am the Chair, relating to the Charity Commission taking legal action to prevent the laying of two reports before Parliament by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. Before I go further, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who, as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, first brought this matter to the House’s attention and moved the motion to refer it to my Committee just over a year ago, on 4 September 2025.
Our report deals with a rather technical but very important matter that concerns us all: parliamentary privilege. We must not forget that the case arose from serious complaints and allegations made against a number of charities, including the alleged concealment of child sexual abuse. The PCA reported on those complaints and made recommendations to the Charity Commission. Having concluded that the injustice had not been remedied and was not likely to be remedied, she decided to lay reports before Parliament, as was her right under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
It was not the role of my Committee to reach a judgment on the substance of the cases, and so we did not do so. Our role was to consider matters of parliamentary privilege and, in this case, the obstruction of the provision of information to Members. Before touching on the details of the case, I should acknowledge at the outset that, as the Leader of the House said, the commission has already accepted and acted on one of our recommendations. On 14 July—the day that we published our report—the chair of the Charity Commission, on behalf of the board, wrote to Mr Speaker, the Chair of PACAC and me, as Chair of the Privileges Committee, with an unreserved apology. The chief executive officer, Mr Holdsworth, apologised in writing to Mr Speaker. The letter to me has been published on the Committee’s website. I welcome the fact that the commission has finally acknowledged its error, albeit at a regrettably late stage.
I hope it will not try Members’ patience if I remind them of the findings and significance of the report. Although it has seemingly technical issues at its heart, it is about the flow of information to this House and is therefore of the greatest importance to the House—to each and every one of us—and its ability to function. The Charity Commission interfered with the flow of information when it sought to prevent the PCA from laying reports before Parliament using the powers given to her in legislation.
To make matters worse, the commission refused for a very long time to accept that this was a privilege matter and persisted in its efforts to prevent publication. That was despite repeated written advice, including from Speaker’s Counsel, that its legal action was improper interference with the House’s right to be informed, and could not be considered by the courts as it would have entailed impeaching and questioning proceedings in Parliament, contrary to article IX of the Bill of Rights. That is deeply regrettable, especially given that the reports related to the commission’s failure, as the PCA saw it, to implement properly the recommendations arising from its handling of the very serious complaints to which I referred.
At the same time as agreeing to refer the matter to my Committee, this House ordered that the PCA’s reports be laid. That resolved the immediate issue: the interference with the provision of information to the House, as a result of which the courts ruled that the case was academic and the legal merits were unarguable. It remained for my Committee, however, to consider whether the behaviour of the commission was a contempt of Parliament and to come to a view on whether reports laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are indeed proceedings in Parliament, as Speaker’s Counsel had advised. In conducting our inquiry on behalf of this House, we took evidence from Speaker’s Counsel, the PCA herself and three representatives of the commission: its then interim chair, Mark Simms; its CEO, David Holdsworth; and its head of litigation, Felix Rechtman.
Although we were grateful to all the witnesses for giving evidence, our report was highly critical of Mr Holdsworth, in particular, especially for repeatedly insisting, both in his oral evidence and elsewhere in correspondence, that it was never the commission’s intention that Parliament should not see the information in the reports. The Committee could not see how that claim could be squared with the commission’s pre-action letter, which specifically sought to quash the decision to provide Parliament with that information. In the light of that, we recommended that Mr Holdsworth and the board of the commission should apologise to the House. As I said, and as the Leader of the House confirmed, those apologies have now been made.
The inquiry sought to establish something that has never been explicitly considered by the courts, not even in this case, since the judge ruled that the legal merits were unarguable: namely, whether reports to be laid under section 10(3) of the 1967 Act are in fact proceedings in Parliament. That is crucial to the rights of Parliament, since article IX of the Bill of Rights confers on proceedings in Parliament protection from being
“impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
That is one of our most foundational constitutional principles. If such a report is a proceeding in Parliament, any attempt to obstruct its laying could be a contempt of Parliament.
The Committee found that such reports were intimately connected to the House and were therefore proceedings in Parliament, and so covered by article IX. It consequently found that any attempt to prevent the laying of a paper before one or both Houses was capable of being a contempt, and that in this particular case the commission had clearly committed such a contempt.
It is deeply regrettable that the Committee had to consider this case at all. I very much hope that the Charity Commission, and indeed other public bodies, learn the lessons so that we avoid a repeat of these unfortunate events.
I thank the other members of the Privileges Committee, the Clerks—especially the Clerk of the Journals, who is soon to be Clerk of the House—and Speaker’s Counsel for helping us to navigate what was at times an incredibly difficult subject procedurally. I hope that my speech and that of the Leader of the House have demonstrated to all of us, however, that it was also one of great importance to the proper functioning of the House of Commons. I hope that Members will agree to the motion.
Privileges
Alberto Costa Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I support the motion proposed by the Leader of the House and thank him for his kind words about me and other Members involved in this matter. The motion is, of course, about the report drafted by the Committee of Privileges. The task the House gave the Committee was, in essence, a simple one: to consider whether to release a document to the Omagh bombing inquiry.
Throughout our work, the Committee has had in mind that the Omagh bombing was one of the greatest atrocities committed in Northern Ireland during the period known as the troubles and afterwards. In Omagh, on 15 August 1998—a summer Saturday in the centre of a busy town where people were going about their everyday business—a 500 lb car bomb exploded, taking the lives of 29 people and two unborn children and injuring hundreds more people, with repercussions for thousands of relatives, friends and people across Northern Ireland. In short, we felt from the beginning that there was an overwhelming public interest in our helping the Omagh bombing inquiry in any way we could.
The inquiry is charged with considering an allegation made by a former senior police officer that police investigators did not have access to intelligence materials that might reasonably have enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists before the Omagh bombing. That allegation was made to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on 11 November 2009.
I thank the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who chairs that Committee today, and commend the words she has said previously about this matter and the work she has done. I also put on the record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who moved the original motion on behalf of the hon. Member for Gower, as the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Part of the evidence taken by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was not reported to the House, and so has never been published. We were asked to make a recommendation on the desirability of releasing that evidence to the inquiry. There were procedural and, perhaps, constitutional difficulties in that.
The terms of reference drawn up by the then Government enabled the inquiry to consider the allegation made by the now retired police officer. The unreported transcript of his evidence was not, however, the property of that or any Government; it belongs to the House of Commons. As it is unreported, it has not been seen by current Members of the House, other than those who sit on the Committee of Privileges; nor will this motion make it available to the House of Commons. In short, in proposing that we provide the transcript to the inquiry, we are giving control of the transcript to that inquiry. This, so far as we are aware, is an unprecedented procedural step. However, I praise the inquiry for its careful, helpful and co-operative approach to the matters of parliamentary privilege raised by this step.
I also thank the inquiry for the assurances it has given my Committee about how it will handle the material, and in particular what steps it will take to ensure that any national security concerns have been fully discussed with the security services before it shares the document or relies on it for its own conclusions. Those assurances may be found in the appendix to our report. Thus, given the assurances received from the inquiry and in the light of the overwhelming public interest in providing aid to an inquiry into the murder of so many people, I trust that the House will feel confident that my Committee has recommended an appropriate course of action.
We have added to our report a recommendation that the Government remind Ministers and officials, when drawing up terms of reference for future similar inquiries or for public bodies, that more care might be taken when it comes to intruding on matters that fall within the exclusive cognisance of Parliament. That is not in any way intended to be a partisan point; the terms of reference for this inquiry were drawn up by the previous Government. We would wish all Governments to take more care in future to recognise the rights of the House of Commons. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point.
I also place on record my thanks not only to fellow members of the Privileges Committee—I see one or two in their place this evening—but to the Clerks of the Committee and the advisers who helped us to navigate what is a challenging constitutional point. To conclude, the Committee believes that the House should do all it can to help the Omagh bombing inquiry in its work. We wish the inquiry well as it continues to seek the truth behind the terrible events of 15 August 1998. We should always remember that truly dreadful human tragedies lie behind what we are doing this evening. I commend the motion to the House.
Business of the House
Alberto Costa Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
Members ask, “Where are they?” I think Reform Members are busy doing each other’s ironing— I do not know whether people have seen that. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For a Member of Parliament who claims to be acting in the British interest to go to another country to suggest that tariffs on this country are increased and that steps are taken to reduce job opportunities here is not just unpatriotic, but anti-British.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Following on from that question, Reform-led Leicestershire county council and Harborough district council have made a series of highly controversial decisions impacting on the people of Lutterworth and the surrounding villages. Does the Leader of the House agree that Freedom of Information Act requests that are made by constituents to public bodies should be answered, and will she help organise a meeting between me and the relevant Minister to discuss the lack of answers from those public bodies?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. We have seen Members of this House from the Reform party going around the world savaging our rights to free speech in this country, yet the councils they run are not prepared to answer questions on free speech. They are blocking local newspapers from scrutinising their work and, as the hon. Gentleman says, they are not opening themselves up to freedom of information requests. I will ensure he gets a ministerial response.
Standards
Alberto Costa Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I, too, thank the Leader of the House for so quickly coming forward with a proposal to enact the sole recommendation of my Committee’s third report of this Session. The Committee agreed its report on 12 June, and here we are, barely a month later, seeking to put its recommendation into practice. The change we propose is straightforward and quite confined, but none the less it is a real pleasure to see our proposal make such quick progress.
As today’s motion makes clear, the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff—those whom we as MPs employ to help us in our work—has been in its present form since 1993. At that time, it was considered that Members’ staff had privileged access to the parliamentary estate and its facilities because they held a pass allowing them physical access. It was therefore those staff, and those staff only, who were required to register any relevant interest. Times have changed, as times are wont to do. The arrival in the intervening 32 years of such minor innovations as the internet and mobile telephony have enabled remote access to the estate in a way that was not envisaged when the register was first created. There has also been a substantial growth in the practice of working from home, and it is now entirely possible—in a way it was not then—for our constituency-based staff to have access to parliamentary information and facilities without ever setting foot within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
In a sense, we are acting quickly to catch up slowly on the way that work and working practices have altered. At the time of our report a month ago, around 2,000 passes had been issued to our staff, but around 4,200 members of staff had parliamentary network access. The change the Committee proposes simply means that all those who have such access will be required to register any interest arising from the list set out in the motion. It will be a small, but important, reinforcement of the transparency that the House properly seeks in how the parliamentary community does its vital work.
The change, as the Leader of the House suggested, will not happen instantly if the House agrees to the motion. The Committee has sought to include a transitional provision in the motion to enable the Standards Committee to press “Go” once the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests has satisfied us that the IT solutions required, of which we have seen examples, are robust and ready to go.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments and the concerns that he noted in respect of the motion. The Committee is aware of the concern, raised via Unite the union and by some staff, that a new requirement to register interests will place their names on a public register, and the Committee and I have offered to meet staff representatives during the transition period to hear those concerns and also, if necessary, to consider whether ameliorations may be required, and I will report to the Leader of the House if that proves to be the case. I am grateful to Unite for raising those concerns with the Committee, and I am also grateful to it for saying that it approves of the principles behind the change.
With that caveat in mind, the Committee hopes that the new arrangements will be in place in the autumn, and, in conjunction with the Registrar, we will seek to publicise the change to ensure that all Members are able to encourage their staff to register as required. Let me again thank the Leader of the House for responding so promptly, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House for noting the concerns that have been raised by some. I trust that the House will feel able to approve these new arrangements.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
Alberto Costa Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
May I begin by welcoming the Government’s motion to put the assurance board on a proper footing, and to introduce a clear policy framework under which the ICGS will operate? As some colleagues have said, the ICGS is an extremely important parliamentary workplace scheme, covering all members of the parliamentary community—more than 10,000 people.
Unusually for a body set up only six years ago—by a former Leader of the House, Andrea Leadsom—it has undergone a number of reviews, which have highlighted concerns about the operation of the scheme and made recommendations to this House. The most recent was the Kernaghan review, from which today’s Government motion has its genesis. The motion will set up in permanent form an assurance board to oversee the workings of the ICGS. I welcome the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on to that new assurance board on a permanent footing.
Why are we here today? The ICGS has experienced a number of concerning process issues since it was set up, particularly in respect of the quality of its investigations and the excessive time delays in the processing of those investigations. If complainants and respondents are to trust the ICGS, it is of paramount importance for the assurance board to ensure that the issues encountered with the investigatory process are resolved, and that complainants and respondents are subject to a process with a credible and, importantly, timely outcome. As I am sure all Members agree, it is not acceptable to complainants and respondents that, in what is an internal workplace process, they must sometimes wait for years for an outcome on, for instance, bullying.
The Committee on Standards is specifically prohibited from involvement in individual ICGS cases. Preserving the independence of those investigations is vital to the success of the investigations, and to the confidence of those who seek the aid of the ICGS and those who are investigated under the scheme. However, the ICGS is part of a wider standards landscape within the House, and the Committee on Standards has a useful voice in highlighting how the scheme is operating and in commenting on policy. In the standards landscape report produced shortly before the last general election, our predecessors—some of whom remain members of the Committee, particularly the lay members—noted that the Committee had not had time to consider fully the recommendations of the Kernaghan review. In paragraph 175 of that report, the previous Standards Committee recommended to the House that the new Committee, which I now chair, should continue to consider the analysis and recommendations contained in the review.
As Chair of the Committee, I can inform the House that the Committee has since had discussions about the work of the ICGS with its outgoing director, Thea Walton—I thank her for the work that she has done—and that it is due to discuss that work further next week. Owing to the pressure of other work—notably the complex inquiry that we have undertaken at the request of the Modernisation Committee and the Leader of the House into outside interests and employment—we have not had time to consider fully all Mr Kernaghan’s recommendations and their implementation, but we will continue to make that a focus of our work during the current Parliament.
Members may have noted that the proposed new assurance board would contain a member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, but not a Member of the Standards Committee in the Commons. Dame Laura Cox, in her 2018 report on the bullying and harassment of Commons staff, recommended that processes to determine such complaints should be entirely independent of Members of Parliament, and that is the course that the House adopted. The House of Lords is responsible for its own processes, and its Committee retains a greater role than this House’s Committee in these matters. Let me emphasise that it is absolutely proper for MPs not to be involved in determining complaints, but there may be scope for involvement in the policy framework surrounding complaints.
I have not sought to amend the motion today—as I have said, I welcome it—but given that involvement in policy does not equate to interference in complaints, and nor should it, it may be worth revisiting in future whether, since the Lords Committee will be represented, this House’s Committee on Standards ought to be represented as well. It might also be worth revisiting whether a valuable member voice—and by “member” I mean not just a Member of Parliament but a lay member of the Committee—beyond the House of Commons Commission might also be useful. I do not expect the Leader of the House to respond to that suggestion today, because it is proper for the Committee on Standards to consider this matter fully, as recommended and as approved by the House. Once it has had the opportunity to do so, it may well revert with further recommendations on how today’s motion might be enhanced as we go forward together, on a cross-party basis, seeking to ensure that we have the best parliamentary workplace scheme, with the appropriate parliamentary stakeholders included in this welcome assurance board.
Let me end by acknowledging what some other Members have said about trade unions. Only a few hours ago, Unite’s parliamentary staff branch emailed all MPs about this very point. I think that the point that I have made about the Committee on Standards sits well with the parliamentary staff branch’s own views on ensuring that all relevant parliamentary stakeholders are included in this welcome assurance board.
Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee
Alberto Costa Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new position. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on an excellent and very detailed maiden speech. No doubt he will represent his constituents very successfully.
I am the only Member in the Chamber today who served on both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee in the 2019 Parliament; all of the other MPs, bar one, are no longer in the Chamber. The amount of work that we had to deal with in the last Parliament was substantial, onerous and unprecedented. As such, I welcome the comments that the Leader of the House has made and broadly support the motions that she has brought before the House. However, I would like to make a couple of points that I hope she will take in the spirit of assistance in which they are intended.
In the time allocated to me, I will briefly turn first to the motion on curbing some elements of second jobs as they relate to parliamentary advice. The Leader of the House may not be aware of the background to that proposal and where it first came from. In November 2021 the Standards Committee published a report—the fourth of the Session—and annex 7 of that report contained comments made by the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Committee—myself and my colleagues —thoroughly looked at the matter on a cross-party basis and concluded that we probably wanted to recommend the banning of paid parliamentary advice or consultancy.
We looked at the wording in the House of Lords, because that is the wording that the then commissioner first looked at. That wording is broadly identical to the wording that we currently have, so in our May 2022 report we came forward with the proposal that the banning of paid parliamentary advice should align with the House of Lords code. My question to the Leader of the House is this: is it her intention to ensure that the code in the other place is amended, so that we do not have an oddity where, for instance, a Labour peer could carry on with the activities that she proposes to ban, but an MP in this House would be unable to do so? That was not the objective of the Standards Committee when we first made our proposal, so it would be very helpful if, in her summing up, she could confirm that the appropriate mirrored changes will be made in the House of Lords.
I will now turn briefly to the other, much more substantial motion. I am sorry that there is a time limit, because I had many things to say about this motion, but given that I have a very short period of time in which to speak, I will restrict my comments. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) touched on, we as a House should remember that the Standards Committee is unlike any other Select Committee of the House of Commons, because half of its members are lay members—people who are not Members of Parliament. The total membership of 14 means that, if we take out the Chair from voting, the lay members have a substantive jurisdiction on that Committee. Many of those lay members will undoubtedly be watching this debate.
I cannot believe that it is the Government’s intention to create a Committee that will be looking at standards—even at a strategic level—that excludes lay members. When the Leader of the House was on the Opposition Benches, she was a strong believer in having lay members on the Committee, so will she look again carefully at her proposal, not only taking into account the balance of political parties but, importantly, ensuring that this new Committee has lay member representation, at least when it is discussing standards issues? My proposal is that the seven current lay members of the Standards Committee could elect one from among their number to sit on that Committee.
The other points I wanted to make were made by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I do not propose to rehearse them again. Suffice it to say that the Leader of the House said that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the Chair of the Administration Committee and so on would be guested on to the Committee, but if the Committee is to be an effective body that can deliver change, as she hopes, we must ensure that these people are not simply guested but that experience and knowledge is somehow brought in, perhaps with ex officio members instead of full voting members. I suggest she looks again at that proposal, and perhaps makes some welcome comments at the end.
To conclude, the proposal is a welcome one, but I urge the Leader of the House to look carefully at bringing lay members on to the Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call Chris Murray to make his maiden speech.
Business of the House
Alberto Costa Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and welcome her back to her place. She was not here long before she had to face the electorate again, and it is great to see that she has been returned so convincingly. She raises important matters about flood defence, as others have. I note that the King’s Speech debate tomorrow will cover rural affairs, so she might want to raise those issues with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who I believe will respond to that debate.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
Double child rapist and murderer Colin Pitchfork was due to have his parole hearing last week in public, following my successful application to the chair of the Parole Board, who agreed to have it in public. The parole hearing has been rescheduled to an unknown date, and only last week the chair of the Parole Board said in public, without writing to me, that she had cancelled her decision to have a public parole hearing for Mr Pitchfork. I welcome the Leader of the House to her place. Could we have an urgent statement on this matter or, better still, an urgent meeting with the Minister to discuss why the Parole Board is acting in this way?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue. For new Members who do not know, he has a strong track record in this place of raising such matters. I will ask the Minister to meet him urgently to discuss this important issue.
Privileges Committee Special Report
Alberto Costa Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Fabricant
I certainly agree that it is completely unacceptable to say:
“We urge you to take action and protect your integrity by resigning from this committee immediately.”
Incidentally, if hon. Members received 600 emails just like that, with hardly any change in the wording, I hope that those emails ended up where many of the identical emails we get end up, which is in the bin. That is what they deserve.
But this Committee was particularly difficult. I think it is fair to say that there is nobody in this land who does not have a view, one way or another, about Boris Johnson; I think possibly Margaret Thatcher is the only other person to have fallen into that category. It is perfectly human. Whether someone is a judge in the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, or whether they sit in a quasi-judicial role, they are bound to have views. I totally accept that members of the Committee will try hard, often with success, to put those views in the background while trying to make a fair and decent judgment.
So why did I say what I said? I will read it out in full:
“Serious questions will need to be asked about the manner in which the investigation was conducted”—
I was talking about procedure.
“These were no jurists as was apparent by the tone of the examination. The question of calibre, malice and prejudice will need to be answered now or by historians.”
I think people will ask these questions, and they may well exonerate the Committee. They may well say that there was no malice or prejudice and that the calibre was excellent, but I think it is fair to pose the questions.
The next question one might ask is why I tweeted those questions at that time. Well, I attended the hearing at which Boris Johnson gave his evidence, and I was there for the whole period. When he gave his evidence, the Committee had a quasi-judicial role. He had to raise his right hand and swear an oath, and he did. Some of the Committee’s members—I will not single out any individuals because some of them are very close friends of mine—behaved with absolute dignity and professionalism, but one turned his back on Boris Johnson as he gave evidence, another gasped in frustration and two looked heavenwards, as if to accuse him of being a liar. If it were a court of law, and we have heard that it was not, the judge would have called the jury to order.
Of course it was not a court of law, but when a witness comes along and swears the oath and a group of individuals give judgment, I would call it a court of law. I simply make the point that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. Certainly on the day the evidence was given, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham pulled one of her faces, as she has just now. It is not in order to do that when taking evidence in a quasi-judicial role.
I simply suggest that members of a Committee sitting in a quasi-judicial role, whether it be the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee or a hybrid Bill Committee, such as the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill Committee, are not all professional lawyers. Many of them are not. There is a very strong argument that they should be trained in how to take evidence when sitting in a quasi-judicial role, not just so that it is fair—it could be argued that it was not fair—but because, as I said earlier, justice needs to be seen to be done.
Most journalists who were present, as I was, did not feel on that day that justice was seen to be done. The Committee may well have come to the right conclusions. I did not vote against the Committee’s original conclusions —I personally thought the sentence was a little vindictive, but I certainly was not going to vote against the main findings—but it is important that a Committee sitting in a quasi-judicial role is seen to be acting in a fair and proper way.
Was there collusion in the timing of my tweet? No, there was not. It was provoked by the behaviour of the Committee when it took evidence from Boris Johnson, and I still stand by my comment. I will say that if, because I sent that tweet during the hearing, it intimidated any member of the Committee in any way, and if they thought I had acted to put pressure on them, I apologise.
Michael Fabricant
I do not think for one moment that I intimidated my hon. Friend, in any way, with my comment, but if I had—I use the subjunctive, not the indicative—of course I apologise because that would have been a breach of privilege, as we should not interfere with the proceedings of any Committee.
Alberto Costa
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The report, with its annex, highlights a sample of some of the tweets. I note that he tweeted on 31 July 2022:
“Harriet Harman determined to ‘stitch up’ #Boris by changing rules of Privilege Committee kangaroo court.”
Does he now accept that referring to the Privileges Committee as a “kangaroo court” is wrong?
Michael Fabricant
I now regret giving way to my hon. Friend. I do not remember that tweet, but the answer is yes, I do.
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant)—I say “Rhondda” correctly because I speak Welsh—had the integrity to stand down after the tweets he sent. Of course, it is fair to say that the House of Commons approved the appointment of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham as Chair of the Privileges Committee, but I wonder whether on reflection, given the comments she had made publicly, she might have said, “No, it is not appropriate for me to chair the Committee,” just as the hon. Member for Rhondda had.
I think I have now spoken enough. I believe the Committee attempts to behave with integrity, and I think it does behave with integrity. Whether it behaved without expressing some sort of prejudice beforehand is a moot point. Whether it was able to ignore prejudice is an interesting question, and one that historians may well ask in the future.
Replacement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer
Alberto Costa Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Penny Mordaunt
I think that the Chancellor should be able to come to the Floor of the House and outline his policies. This is a serious moment. We want to ensure that the markets are reassured, and I suggest that any questions that the hon. Lady has on economic policy are directed to the Chancellor.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
In her answer to the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend abundantly demonstrated to this House what an enormous asset she is to the governing party. Does she agree that any single Conservative MP would make a fantastic Chancellor, well above any socialist or separatist on the Opposition Benches?
Penny Mordaunt
In terms of the Opposition’s performance, I think Larry the cat would give them a run for their money.
Business of the House
Alberto Costa Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Leader of the House to his place. I can see that business questions on Thursday will continue to be the highlight of the week, and I thank him for that. I pay tribute to the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg). Thursday regulars will miss him, even though they might not admit to it. Members from across the House have certainly told me—
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)?
Lucy Allan
Yes, indeed. Members from across the House have told me how much they appreciate the diligence that my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset showed in following up on their questions, and in highlighting their local campaigns. He was ably supported by the wonderful Leader of the House team, who we see in the Box.
Today is the last day for Members to participate in the consultation on proposed changes to standards on the conduct of MPs. Members have expressed concerns that their names could be made public and their comments used against them if they were to submit them online. Can the Leader of the House suggest a mechanism for how Members can participate in the consultation anonymously?
Mark Spencer
This is an important issue, and, as I have said, we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that we get our language right in the House. Hate crime of any nature should not be tolerated. I think it is always a good thing to debate it at any point and to highlight and condemn it, as well as working with our law enforcement officers who are out there on the frontline dealing with it on a daily basis.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
The good people of Sherwood must be very proud today that their Member of Parliament has risen to become Leader of the House of Commons. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the position that he now holds. As one east midlands Member to another, may I ask him to confirm that he will facilitate, whenever possible, any debate in the House that seeks to highlight the great work that the Government do in helping to improve the lives of people and businesses in the east midlands?
