Committee on Standards
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am very disappointed in the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), because, in effect, he is accusing me, having worked with me over years on achieving justice for this place, of being completely disingenuous. I find that very personally disappointing.
Today is a day for serious consideration by all colleagues across this House. We must address the grave concerns about the way in which we are held to account under our own Standing Orders. My amendment is not about whether the findings of the third report of the Committee on Standards are correct or incorrect. It is not about whether Mr Owen Paterson is innocent or guilty under that report. It is not about letting anyone off, stitching anything up, or any of the other accusations flying around the Chamber. Today’s amendment is about the process of investigations into Members and the question of whether this process must now be reviewed by a politically balanced Select Committee that will consider some exceedingly serious questions. First, there is the question of whether our investigatory process should more closely reflect the laws of natural justice, where an accused Member can expect to have their own evidence taken into account, to put forward witnesses in their defence, to be interviewed early in the process and provide their own explanation and, vitally, to access an independent appeal process.
Secondly, there is the serious question of whether Standing Orders Nos. 149, 149A and 150 are entirely fit for purpose. Those are the Standing Orders that govern the make-up of the Committee on Standards and the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.
I worked with Kathryn Stone when I was Leader of the House, and I know she takes her role seriously and strives to take a balanced view. However, the PCS does not have a legal background and is not required to by orders. She works as both sole investigator and judge. The Committee on Standards can change her recommendations, should it choose, but there is no clarity on when or why that would happen. The Committee will perfectly understandably tend to prefer to uphold the system over the individual. The PCS can decide to establish an investigatory panel to help her, and the Committee can even require her to establish such a panel, but again there is no clarity in Standing Orders on when that should be done, and it has never been done to date.
As Leader of the House between 2017 and 2019, a cross-party team of Members worked flat-out under my chairmanship—I pay tribute to them again today—to establish an independent complaints and grievance scheme. I know well that the scheme has its detractors and is still disappointingly slow to dispense justice. However, that cross-party team made great efforts to ensure that it followed the laws of natural justice—specifically that, first, both alleged perpetrator and alleged victim are very clearly able to give their side of the story to an independent case manager; secondly, witnesses can be presented in support of either side; thirdly, legal support can be provided; fourthly, there is a clear hierarchy where the investigator is not also the prosecutor, and fifthly, there is a clear appeals process. Furthermore, until found guilty, the alleged perpetrator is presumed innocent, and the investigation is confidential. Vitally, the whole scheme is reviewed on a regular and timetabled basis to ensure it continues to be fair and impartial.
Yvette Cooper
The right hon. Lady did important work on the independent complaints process, but she will recognise that, as Leader of the House, she had considerable time to propose reforms and amendments to the Committee on Standards process, should she have chosen to do so. Does she not recognise that proposing reforms now, in conjunction with this individual case—where an independent investigation and an independent cross-party Committee have come to very clear conclusions about paid advocacy—undermines the decisions and integrity of this House and any positive purpose to any reforms she might want for the future?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am incredibly sympathetic to what the right hon. Lady says. In fact, I was about to come on to what many in the Chamber are asking, which is, “Why bring forward this review today, on the day we are being asked to consider one particular case?” She asks why I did not bring forward these changes when I was Leader of the House. The answer is that I was working flat-out, on a cross-party basis, doing 18-hour days—many Members would support that point—on the independent complaints and grievance scheme. Had I stayed in post longer, I absolutely would have looked at this review. I am frustrated that these two systems have not been brought into line with each other. I share her frustration. I would have strongly preferred for this review to have been kicked off on its own merits at a time when the waters would not be muddied by the inevitable party political point scoring.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend was a distinguished Leader of the House. She has set out in her amendment a view about how this system should work, which would be far more judicial and forensic. I am sure that many of us in this House on both sides find these whole processes very unedifying and somewhat embarrassing. We do not vote on our remuneration packages. In the scenario she is setting out, would it be appropriate for the House still to vote on these reports, or, given the beefed-up investigatory powers that she is setting out—looked at by the Standards Committee—should it not come for a vote of this House at all? It should be at the Standards Committee, which should then opine on what it hears.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which came up time and again during consideration of the independent complaints and grievance scheme. It was made very clear that, in a democratically elected system, ultimately, it has to be for elected colleagues to be able to make the final decision. That is an incredibly important point of principle. It was put to me that, if we ever reached a point where unelected people could remove elected people, we would put ourselves into the position of a dictatorship. But I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case for reform, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, that reform can only work if it comes from all parts of the House. By bringing her amendment today, it looks like we are moving the goalposts. For that reason, I cannot support her. What might she say about that?
Dame Andrea Leadsom
As I just said in response to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I share the concern that we are bringing this forward today. I sincerely hope that colleagues from all parts of the Chamber will be prepared to join together to review this system, which is so clearly flawed. I ask all colleagues to search their hearts carefully today. As MPs, there is no doubt we are our own harshest critics and judges. We spend so much of our lives trying to deliver justice to our constituents and fighting against unfairness wherever we see it. Today’s amendment is not about one judgment on one person. It is not about letting anyone off the hook, and it is not about rejecting the report of the Committee on Standards.
Jess Phillips
With much respect, and having worked with the right hon. Lady for many months on the ICGS process, it is only fair, in the light of that, that I raise that today two of the people who went through that process have contacted me. They are victims of sexual harassment or assault, and they say that what is happening in Parliament today is very unedifying and makes them certain that victims will find it difficult to understand that we will not just overturn things and make it very hard for anyone to come forward about anything.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We have worked together on this for many years. I must make clear to her that the amendment is not looking at the independent complaints and grievance scheme. As I have set out, that was established under a cross-party review, and it had all the laws of natural justice taken carefully into account in its establishment.
Today’s amendment is an opportunity to review the process for fairness, natural justice and impartiality in the system that oversees Members of Parliament. The review is proposed to take place within three months from today, at which time the specific case can be brought back to the House for reconsideration.
Dame Andrea Leadsom
I will just finish, because time is pressing. A colleague texted me today to say:
“Achieving change in this place is tough, but today’s amendment could lead to a standards system that is fairer for all. It is so sad that it takes a tragedy for the House to act.”
There is never a right time to act, but let us please do our best for fairness and support the amendment today.
Chris Bryant
I think he got the easier job.
I have not done any radio or television interviews on this matter because, as Chair of the Committee, I am a servant of the House. I thank the Commissioner and the Committee. In particular, I wish the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) well, because he is very ill at the moment. I hope that he will be back with us soon. It is inappropriate for people to comment on absences from the Committee when they do not understand why members might be absent.
I am painfully conscious that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) lost his wife in tragic circumstances in June 2020. I wish to express my sincere condolences to him. I have known suicide in my family, as he knows, and I have performed many funerals for suicides. I know the grief, the anguish, and often the guilt that is associated. The last year must have been very distressing for him, and the Committee took those circumstances fully into account when considering his conduct.
I will address the charges, the process, the sanction and the amendment. The charges are very serious. The Member repeatedly, over a sustained period, lobbied officials and Ministers on behalf of his paying clients, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, from whom he was receiving more than £9,000 a month, as he still is. He pursued their commercial interests. When they could not get meetings with officials and Ministers, he used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure them. Providing privileged access is a valuable service.
The Member promoted what he called “Randox’s superior technology”. He wanted the Government to use Randox’s calibration system. He repeatedly used his taxpayer-funded parliamentary office for commercial meetings. That is paid lobbying. In some shape or form, it has been banned since 1695 and expressly so since cash for questions, which brought this House into terrible disrepute in the 1990s. One Conservative Member described it to me as a “catalogue of bad behaviour”. I have yet to meet a Conservative MP who has not said to me, “He clearly broke the rules.” I think that includes the Leader of the House.
The Member says that he was raising serious wrongs, but he did not say so at the time. If they were truly serious, one might have expected him to write articles or do media interviews, as he was perfectly entitled to do. He did not. He did the one thing that he was banned from doing: lobby Ministers time and again in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients. That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice.
On the process, the Member has had a fair hearing. We had legal advice from Speaker’s Counsel throughout. As one former High Court judge said to me yesterday,
“the procedure is consistent with natural justice and similar or identical to workplaces up and down the country.”
We on the Committee spent many hours reviewing the evidence in this case without fear or favour. The Member had prior notice of the charges and the evidence against him at every stage. He had his legal advisers with him. The Committee invited him to make his appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and I hope he would confirm that we gave him every opportunity to make his case to us and that the session was conducted respectfully and fairly. I think he is nodding.
The Member has said that his witnesses should have been interviewed. Natural justice requires that witnesses be heard, but that does not necessarily mean that they must be heard orally or cross-examined. We did what many courts and tribunals do every day of the week: we reviewed all the witness statements, took them into consideration and published them in full.
The Member claims that the commissioner had made up her mind before she sent her memorandum. That is completely to misunderstand the process. As the commissioner has done in every other case, she started an investigation and invited the Member to meet her and/or to submit evidence. Once she had completed her investigation and, by definition, found on a preliminary basis that there had been a breach of the rules, she submitted a memorandum to him for his comments, and then to the Committee. That is when we heard his appeal, in writing and in person.
I turn to the sanction. As the Committee says in the report:
“Each of Mr Paterson’s several instances of paid advocacy would merit a suspension of several days, but the fact that he has repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, is even more concerning. He has brought the House into disrepute.”
A Conservative colleague whom I respect a great deal said to me on Monday that justice should always be tempered by mercy. I agree. But justice also demands no special favours.
These are the precedents that we considered: Patrick Mercer was suspended for six months; the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for 30 days; Jonathan Sayeed for 14 days; and George Galloway for 18 days. When Geoffrey Robinson failed to provide proper responses to the commissioner and Committee, he was suspended for a month. This case is just as serious because it involved at least 14 instances. It was a pattern of behaviour, and the Member has said time and again over the last week that he would do the same again tomorrow. If the House were therefore to vote down or water down the sanction, or to carry the amendment, it would be endorsing his action. We would be dismantling the rule on paid advocacy, which has been around in some shape or form since 1695. I am afraid that the public would think of us as the Parliament that licensed cash for questions.
Let me turn to the amendment. I have worked with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on many things; I think she is very wrong today. It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual. That is what the amendment does. Retrospective legislation to favour or damage an individual because they are a friend or a foe is immoral and the polar opposite of the rule of law. That is why, as the Leader of the House knows, I spoke and voted with Conservative Members when we were considering a retrospective motion to subject the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) to a recall petition. The amendment should fail on that basis alone—it is the opposite of due process.
The amendment purports to set up an appeal process, but an appellate body must be independent and every single member of the body will be parti pris, by definition. They will have been whipped and taken a view today. They will almost certainly have voted. The proposed Chair, by agreeing to have his name put forward, is already not independent. I point out gently to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire that it was her motion as Leader of the House on 7 January 2019 that set up the Standards Committee in its present form. At that time, she said that
“a greater element of independence was required, and that having seven lay members and seven parliamentary Members on the Standards Committee…provides the right balance—having the memory and the corporate understanding of being in this place, while at the same time ensuring that we can benefit from the experience and knowledge of independent lay members.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 128.]
The body she proposes today will have no independent members—no independence.
Chris Bryant
I will not take an intervention, if the right hon. Member does not mind. She must know that this is a retrograde step. She also said—I say this strongly to all hon. Members who have said many things about the parliamentary commissioner—that
“ensuring that the PCS can operate independently…is vital and will better enable justice for those seeking recourse.”—[Official Report, 7 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 127.]
The amendment will drive a coach and horses through our standards system. We will have two rival Select Committees on standards at the same time, charged with the same piece of business. As many hon. Members may know, the Standards Committee is engaged in a review of the code of conduct, which we are required to do in every Parliament, and that will include review of the operation of the system. I am absolutely certain that there are things that we could do better. I am determined to make sure that we will do things better to ensure natural justice.
Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
September 2016, January 2018, July 2020, and here we are again today. Members of the public might think that everything that can possibly be said about restoration and renewal has already been said. They might also think that we should just get on with it. I am frankly amazed that we are rehashing this debate yet again and that some are trying to draw a different conclusion.
We debated restoration and renewal at great length in 2018, and we even achieved Royal Assent for the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019. This House and the other place decided to accept the findings from the Joint Committee, set up in 2014, that the best value for taxpayers’ money is achieved by a full decant from this Palace.
To try to carry out the project while colleagues continue to work here would, according to every assessment, cost the taxpayer significantly more—potentially up to seven times as much over several decades. A recent NAO report has stated that the ongoing maintenance work to patch and mend has doubled in just three years to more than £125 million a year. We are spending £2 million a week just to keep this building going.
It appears that there are those who would prefer to stay in these beautiful palace surroundings rather than save money for the taxpayer, but my direct question to them—they know who they are—is: why pretend that staying in the Palace is the cheaper option when all the evidence points to the contrary?
Established back in 2014, which is now seven years ago, the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster concluded in 2016—now five years ago—that the Palace faced
“an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore.”
The report referred to the pre-feasibility study concluding that there was
“a clear and pressing need to tackle the backlog of work”
and observed that the
“longer the essential work is left, the greater the risk becomes that the building might suffer a sudden, catastrophic failure”.
The independent expert advice that it received pointed to one clear conclusion:
“a full decant of the Palace of Westminster is the best delivery option”.
“Impending crisis”, “clear and pressing need”—we cannot responsibly ignore it, but we are ignoring it, are we not, Madam Deputy Speaker? My question for the Leader of the House is: why is the one clear conclusion from the independent expert evidence that he himself heard when he was a member of the Joint Committee now being disregarded? Why is the clear decision of this House and the other place in 2018 now being watered down? To suggest that previous debates proposed profligate expenditure is utter nonsense, so going round this circular procrastination serves only the purpose of the procrastinators.
My right hon. Friend has described at length the excellent work that has been undertaken to install fire breaks and sprinkler systems, but, as he knows only too well, there are other potential catastrophes that would require an immediate and potentially multi-year evacuation of the entire Palace. Those could happen today, tomorrow, over the weekend. Such catastrophes could include an asbestos leak from anywhere in the basement or the many chimneys that rise up through the Palace. It could include a major collapse of stonework. My right hon. Friend will be aware of recent cases of falling masonry. I am pleased to say that so far there has been no damage to human life, but he will know that our right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General did fall victim to a stone gargoyle crashing through his car windscreen while in the car park. Masonry has also fallen on to a path that is regularly used by members of the public and colleagues.
Other disasters that could befall this world famous building—today, tomorrow, over the weekend—include major failures in the electricals, sewerage, gas and water installations that make up the bulk of the spaghetti of wiring and pipework in the basement. Much of it is now well beyond the patch and mend approach being taken to the work at a cost of two million quid a week. In today’s debate, we should surely be considering the design of the basement itself. I know that those Members who want to stay in the Palace make the case that the mechanical and engineering works that make up the vast bulk of the restoration can be done in bits and pieces, so that they can therefore move between this Chamber and the other place without any incremental cost or difficulty. But you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the House and many colleagues right across the House know full well that the basement runs the entire length of the Palace. To shut off one part of it while MPs can occupy another would be vastly expensive, time consuming and incredibly complicated.
As MPs, we all know how tough it has been for so many throughout the pandemic. It is totally understandable that many colleagues feel nervous about actively voting to spend any money on restoring the Palace. For many, it is easier to kick the can down the road, ignoring the rising costs and risks to the Palace in order to avoid facing up to having to pass an outline business case that would approve the cost of restoration and renewal. However, all colleagues should be aware that there is a significant upside to the restoration of this UNESCO world heritage site: the fantastic opportunity for UK businesses, for UK crafts—old and new—and for apprenticeships right across our country.
The work carried out here will become a showcase for the best of British for future generations. Not only that, but engagement by the R and R Sponsor Body has identified that 75% of the public want to see this place restored. They might not know what goes on here or they might loathe what goes on here, but they do not want us to let it sink into disrepair, or to see that the most famous and iconic building in the world is lost due to our mismanagement and failure to act.
There is one more factor to consider. Quite apart from the fundamental issue of saving the taxpayer money by volunteering to move out while the restoration takes place, there is also the need to provide proper contingency arrangements for our democracy that any 21st century Parliament needs to have in place. Democracy has not been functioning well during the pandemic. The Leader of the House has himself admitted that Ministers have had an easier ride, while the majority of MPs are absent from the House. We are all agreed that healthy scrutiny of the Government is dependent on MPs and peers being present to provide tricky interventions and, yes, the opposition that makes for a functioning democracy. A hybrid Parliament such as we have seen during the pandemic is no solution to the multi-year restoration that is needed.
Even once the restoration is completed, there will always be the risk that an unforeseen future event requires temporary evacuation from the Palace, so the Palace of Westminster needs a permanent contingency arrangement. Of course a temporary arrangement does exist, and I know we do not talk about it, but this would not be adequate for more than a couple of weeks, which is simply not good enough. It therefore seems extraordinary to me that MPs refusing to decant will not only cost far more but will also mean that we never have a proper contingency plan for the future of our democratic institutions. If, as is likely, the Sponsor Body does end up promoting a full decant to a converted rather than a rebuilt Richmond House, this would offer the right compromise. It would enable our democracy to function properly while the critical work goes ahead in the Palace. In addition, the legacy value of having a permanent contingency arrangement in Richmond House would ensure the safety and security of all who work and visit here for generations to come.
I will leave hon. Members with a quote from a 30-year-old resident of Northern Ireland taken from the R and R public engagement strategy:
“It would be embarrassing if people around the world could see the state the building has gotten into. It is supposed to be a symbol for democracy around the world.”
Business of the House
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady raises a point that concerns hon. Members across the House. People working in retail ought to be protected, and are protected, by the full force of the law. The Queen’s Speech debate is an opportunity to raise a very wide range of issues; that opportunity will be provided once Parliament is recalled, and there will be a new ballot for private Members’ Bills for the next Session. I hope that we will get through all 13 Fridays in more normal time than we have had over the past year.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I add my deep condolences to the lovely hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon)?
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House set out what assessment he has made of the cost and safety of the enormous amount of mechanical and engineering work that is required to restore this beautiful UNESCO world heritage site, the Palace of Westminster? Will he confirm that he agrees that although taxpayers’ value for money is absolutely at the heart of the restoration project, so too must be the importance of a contingency arrangement for our democracy to keep functioning should there be a disastrous fire, asbestos leakage or other disaster during such time as any restoration were to take place?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend obviously knows a great deal about this subject. She will be aware that the sponsor body is currently drawing up its business plan, which will take into account all the risks. I can give my right hon. Friend the important reassurance that a great deal of fire safety work has already been done, so there are now 7,112 automatic fire-detection devices, 4,126 sprinkler heads in the basement of the Palace and 8 miles of pipe for a new sprinkler system in the basement, to ensure that in the event of a fire, life can be protected. That work has been completed in recent years to a high standard to ensure safety.
As regards contingencies, it is not normal to discuss their details on the Floor of the House, as my right hon. Friend will know, but obviously there will be some consequences of how we have operated over the past year when it comes to working out how any contingency could or should be carried out.
House Standards System: Confidentiality and Sanctions
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
May I start by welcoming this report from the Standards Committee? It definitely clears up a number of loose ends from the original work on the ICGS and demonstrates the benefits that the House has had from the past couple of years of operating the scheme. That benefit of hindsight demonstrates that the fears and suspicions of some when the scheme was first introduced have so far been unfounded. There is now a clear route to providing justice to everyone who visits or works in Parliament. At the same time, the training and sanctions in place will go a long way towards changing the culture, so that everyone who comes here is treated with dignity and respect.
There have now been two full reviews of the scheme by Alison Stanley, who in my view has done a great job. I hope that regular reviews will continue to take place to ensure that there is always scrupulous fairness, particularly in the contentious area of concern about politically-motivated complaints against MPs; I know that a number of colleagues across the House continue to be concerned about that point.
Alison Stanley has made clear in her reviews the need to speed up processes so that the findings of any investigation are delivered in a reasonable period of time. I hope that the changes made as a result will give complainants greater confidence than they have today that the scheme is worth using. There is no doubt that justice delayed is justice denied, and some of the complaints that have been brought to date have been far too slow to reach a conclusion. If we do not tackle this issue, it will undermine the whole credibility of the scheme, so I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Standards Committee to focus on ensuring that the right resources are available to get the job done in a timely way.
I want to speak briefly about an amendment that has not been selected on the Order Paper. Mr Speaker kindly said that this would be in order as it is relevant to the main discussion this evening. In spite of being disappointed that the amendment was not selected, I will leave it at that.
When I left the job of Leader of the House in 2019, one of the key issues that was unresolved was how to ensure that MPs were not marking their own homework when it came to sanctions for the worst excesses of behaviour. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and his parliamentary team have obviously worked hard on this issue and have done a great job in establishing the independent expert panel. Members of the public will be able to have confidence that MPs are properly held to account by competent individuals who have no vested interest in the political process.
There is one piece of unfinished business, hence my amendment that was not selected—I promise that I shall not mention it again. In the past, the Recall of MPs Act 2015 was the route to the removal of an MP, whereby his or her constituents could petition for the recall of that MP and for a by-election to be held. Although this was seen by many as an inadequate sanction, it nevertheless had the advantage that the constituency concerned would continue to be represented in Parliament throughout the recall process.
The new arrangement enables the independent expert panel to expel an MP from office subject to an aye or no vote in this House. That has the clear advantage of swift justice, but it also has the disadvantage of leaving the constituents of that Member unrepresented. I am sure that all colleagues across the House can think of dozens of their own constituents who have significant problems requiring the urgent intervention of their MP, which is welcomed by the constituent in question. If an MP is expelled under the new arrangements, those constituents will have no formal representation until the by-election takes place. Although I am sure that the political parties will always attempt to provide cover, there is no agreed process or guarantee as to what these now unrepresented constituents can expect.
My efforts—I do not wish to mention the A-word again, Mr Deputy Speaker—merely sought to ensure that the Chair of the Standards Committee might hold, or indeed ask another Committee in this House to hold, an inquiry into how this circumstance could be covered to the benefit of our constituents. Although tonight’s motion was the trigger for my desire to put forward that suggestion, colleagues will of course realise that any inquiry held by a Committee of this House could then also take into account either the tragic circumstances of the death of a Member, or a lengthy absence due to illness or baby leave, in considering how the constituents of that Member can be adequately represented.
I would very much appreciate full consideration being given to my suggestion. As I am sure colleagues will appreciate, I will come back to it later; if at first I don’t succeed, I shall try, try and try again.
Business of the House
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted to clear it up. Her Majesty’s Opposition voted against the Queen’s Speech at the beginning of this Session. The increases that this Government proposed in NHS funding were a centrepiece of the Gracious Speech, and their votes against the Queen’s Speech were an attempt to stifle the Government’s agenda before it had even begun. The Queen’s Speech made clear our intention to establish in law for the first time the NHS’s multi-year funding settlement, a testament to how seriously the Government take funding the NHS. We have delivered a 12.8% increase in nurses’ pay over three years and we are seeing a 34% increase in nurses’ applications. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not ask about a Bill. He asked about a document, and it seems to me that the Queen’s Speech is a document because it is printed, on very fine paper normally—it used to be on vellum.
We have to live within our means. Everyone recognises that. There is not a single person in this country who does not recognise the phenomenal contribution made by the NHS over the last year, by doctors, nurses and all those who work in the NHS, but the Government—the taxpayer—have an enormous deficit, one of the biggest in our history, and what is happening is reasonable within the context that nurses have already received a 0.7% increase. They will receive a further 1% increase in the next financial year, as will all NHS workers. It is worth bearing in mind that the last time there was a 1% increase in NHS pay, it led to an average 2.7% increase for the average worker in the NHS because of grade increments. So actually, the situation is considerably better than is being painted by the Opposition, and the admiration and appreciation of what people who work in the NHS have done is shared across the whole country, but the country has to live within its means. That is a hard truth that the Opposition seek to run away from.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will see that the restoration and renewal sponsor body’s latest report, out today, recommends exactly the same as the report in 2014 and the report in 2016, and draws the same conclusion as the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill that I introduced in 2018. My right hon Friend must surely see that the risks of a major asbestos leak, a sewage failure, or, indeed, a devastating fire, such as we saw at Notre Dame, are very high and remain very high, and we have virtually no contingency for this place. My personal motto is JFDI, and I would like to offer that to my right hon. Friend to gird his loins to make some progress.
Business of the House
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was gobsmacked, just wishing I could have been such a class act as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, with his vast knowledge. That was a real history lesson. I want to ask him what news there is on the Elizabeth Tower, as we are all aware that the restoration was very much over budget and over time. It is an iconic part of our great United Kingdom history. I am particularly keen to know what disability access has been installed in Elizabeth Tower so that everybody across the UK can access that wonderful site.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend has led the way in this, because it was her pressure to ensure that the Elizabeth Tower should have disabled access when she was Leader of the House that has ensured that one of the ventilation shafts will have a lift in it, which will make disabled access possible. The lift will improve safety and help reduce the time it would take to evacuate a mobility-impaired person from the Tower. In more general terms, the Elizabeth Tower team is back working at full productivity, and the work is continuing across all sites, in line with advice from the Government. The Commons is working with its supply chain to update its programme of work, ascertaining and limiting the impact of covid-19 on all projects. It is encouraging that the work is going ahead full steam and that there will be disabled access, and I thank her for the contribution she has made to ensuring that.
ICGS Investigations: Commons-Lords Agreement
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will just speak very briefly to this matter. The Chair of the Standards Committee sends his apologies. He has had to take a close relative to hospital today. I am standing in for him, although I take responsibility for my own words.
The Standards Committee has co-operated constructively with its sister Committee, the Lords’ Conduct Committee, chaired by the noble Lord Mance, to develop an arrangement to address a loophole. As a member of the Committee on Standards, I support the motion to approve our Committee’s report. The report deals with what one might describe as an item of unfinished business arising from the House’s creation of the independent complaints and grievance scheme that we have just been discussing. The scheme was put together very rapidly, because the House rightly wished to demonstrate to the wider public that we take allegations of bullying and harassment within the parliamentary community extremely seriously, and it was acknowledged at the time that the scheme would need revision in the light of experience and that there were gaps or lacunae in the scheme that needed to be filled. One of those gaps was the lack of any arrangement between this House and the other place as to how allegations against ex-Members of one House would be proceeded with if they became Members of the other House.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Just to put the record completely straight, the working group—Members who sat on that group are in the Chamber today—was very clear that the two schemes should be aligned between this House and the House of Lords. However, due to a very unfortunate investigation that took place in the House of Lords under the previous system, it was felt that the ICGS could not be implemented in that House at that time. That is why this anomaly has sprung up. I would also like to raise the important point that, as things stand with the ICGS having been working for some time, its findings are just too slow. There have been live instances where individuals who have been Members of this place are being considered for membership of the other place when potential complaints against them are still pending in this place. It is not clear to me that the Standards Committee’s report deals with that circumstance.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I will certainly take back to the Committee what my right hon. Friend is saying, and if we need to make a further amendment to the arrangements, we should do so. As things stand, however, former MPs who are now in the other place cannot be investigated under the ICGS for behaviour that is alleged to have taken place while they were MPs.
After our discussions with Lord Mance and the Lords’ Conduct Committee, and with the two Houses’ Commissioners also working closely together on this, the arrangement that we now propose is set out in an appendix to the Standards Committee report. It proposes that ex-MPs now in the other place should be investigated under the Commons procedures involving independent investigators, the Commissioner and, if necessary, the new independent expert panel that the House has just nominated. If that does not satisfy my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), could she put on record why it does not do so?
If an ex-MP who is now in the other place is found to have breached the behaviour code, this House will not be involved in sanctioning them. Instead, the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards will recommend a sanction and the Lords’ Conduct Committee would hear any appeal against that sanction. The full House of Lords would decide on imposing a serious sanction, such as suspension or expulsion, but the important point is that the investigation and the findings would be done under our system in this House, and the House of Lords has agreed to that.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not want to detain the House, but this is a really important issue and my hon. Friend asked me to put my views on record. This relates specifically to when someone who has been a Member of this House and has outstanding complaints against them is under consideration for being offered a position in the other place by the House of Lords Committee, which is not privy to the existence of the ongoing complaints about them in this place under the ICGS.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I think that would be a matter more for the Lords Appointments Commission or the vetting procedures—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
That does not fall under our remit at all, but in recent cases that I can think of, an estoppel has been put on possible elevations to the other place of Members who are under suspicion or where there has been controversy. Obviously, if it was an entirely secret and non-disclosable allegation that had not found its way into the public sphere, we would need to check that there would be a procedure for that. However, that is a separate matter from whether a complaint is going to be investigated and adjudicated by the ICGS.
We have also addressed the complementary problem. There are not many Members of the other place who choose to renounce their peerages and seek election to the House of Commons, but this can and does occasionally happen. The Committee therefore recommends that the new arrangements should be reciprocal. Allegations against an ex-peer who might then be in the Commons would be investigated under the procedures of the other place, but any sanction would be carried out within this House.
The Lords Conduct Committee has agreed a report in very similar terms to our own, and this has been approved in the other place. I urge this House to do likewise and approve these sensible arrangements, which are necessary to block off this lack of redress in our measures for tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct by our Members and ex-Members.
Independent Expert Panel
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
I fundamentally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the real-life experience of the people who make up the panel is very varied, considerable and distinguished. As I said, there was considerable competition for these positions, with 134 applicants. The recruitment process was robust and thorough, overseen by a panel chaired by Sarah Davies.
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is a pleasure to give way to my right hon. Friend and predecessor, who started this whole process with such distinction, and it is my privilege to be carrying it on.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I looked carefully at the CVs of the proposed members of the panel, and I wholeheartedly endorse them; I have no reservations. However, I think that one of the first things the panel should consider when it meets is the unresolved issue that, if it recommends that a Member of Parliament be expelled from this place, that disenfranchises the Member’s constituency for a period. We have had this debate before, but that seems to be a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle, and the panel might like to consider it.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is an important point, and my right hon. Friend has raised it before in the House. The hope is that the panel will meet relatively soon, if the motion goes through this afternoon. If I may, I will send a copy of today’s Hansard to the chairman, if he were to be appointed, so that he may see my right hon Friend’s contribution. Although it is an independent panel, and it would be wrong of me to tell it what should be on its agenda, that will bring to the chairman’s attention the thought that the panel should consider this.
The chairman of the panel was Sarah Davies, the Clerk Assistant. Also on the panel were the Speaker’s Counsel, Saira Salimi; Steven Haines, external member and lay members of the Bar Standards Board; and Dame Laura Cox, whose report started this process. The process was overseen at each stage by two members of the Commission appointed for the purpose: my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) and the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). The Commission has concluded—and I concur—that the eight selected candidates bring an impressive combination of qualities and experience. I believe that, together, they will bring exactly the authority and impartiality needed to build confidence in the ICGS and to demonstrate that independence, fairness and rigour sit at its heart. I commend this motion to the House.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for moving the motion, and I agree with the majority of his remarks. I draw Members’ attention to the report, which was published on 19 November 2020 on behalf of the House of Commons Commission. It lays out the exact process that the Leader of the House described.
My right hon. Friends the Members for North Durham (Mr Jones) and for Warley (John Spellar) made important points. Mr Speaker has said that he would look at this issue, because otherwise we are just getting the usual suspects. For instance, given Black Lives Matter, putting adverts in a slightly different place might be a good idea, and then we would get a broad range of people applying. We thank all those who applied for these posts for agreeing to serve. I am not sure that the issue raised by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) would be a matter for the panel. That is a policy issue, rather than a judicial issue, and the panel is there to look at cases, rather than to decide on policy.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree that it is not the panel’s jurisdiction or role to do that, but in a way that highlights the point: it is no longer the House’s role and it is not the panel’s role either. The losers are, potentially, our constituents. I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady, but otherwise it will fall to nobody to reconsider this issue.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments. She leads me to go on to say that Alison Stanley did a brilliant six-month review, and the concern is that not all her recommendations have been implemented. She is looking at the governance of who is responsible—who is the named person—for this whole process. The important part of the process is that it should be transparent and not secretive. I am aware of a number of cases that come through where perhaps the procedure is not fair on both sides—to the respondent and the claimant—but, again, that is a matter for Alison Stanley to look at in her 18-month review. As the Leader of the House said, it is a very simple survey, which can be found online, and it is open until 4 December.
Andrea Leadsom
I have a small point on undertaking the various training programmes, in particular the behaviour code training. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) will recall that it was supposed to be mandatory following the next general election.
Patrick Grady
Indeed. I do not know what any hon. Member’s reason for not taking part in it would be. We are all very busy, but the unconscious bias training that I took part in was delivered remotely via Zoom. Surely no harm can come from it; only good can come from taking part in some training. I would recommend it to everyone. What we are discussing now, and on the next motion, will help to strengthen the entire process. We look forward to moving forward.
Proxy Voting
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will be quick.
I thank very much my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), and the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), for what I think is a real improvement on proxy voting for parental leave. It is great to see that someone no longer has to prove, when their tummy is out there, that they are actually pregnant and it is not just a cushion. That is very valuable.
On the other hand, I have to say that I am a bit disappointed. As the right hon. Member for Walsall South said, we had many debates in this place, and there was a Procedure Committee review of parental leave a long time ago. That was always done on the expectation that if it worked, we would include it, but also potentially expand it. I see that the Committee’s latest report says, “We don’t want to expand it because if somebody is very ill or recently bereaved, for the purpose of transparency, that would have to be disclosed.” I am sorry; I just do not accept that.
I think that this is a missed opportunity. We have had some colleagues in this place who have been desperately ill. They are not allowed to vote by proxy. They are just going to have to turn up or be paired. What really sparked this change was the inadvertent breaking of a pair when a colleague was off on maternity leave. I do think it is a grave disappointment—
Karen Bradley
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that she did to get us to this point. May I just assure her that the Procedure Committee is committed to looking at proxy voting once we are through the pandemic? What we wanted to do at this stage was to ensure that we had a report that allowed the Government to bring motions forward on parental leave and that dealt with proxy votes during the pandemic, but I give her my absolute commitment that we will look at this again and consider whether it is right to expand proxy voting beyond parental leave once we are back to—let us hope—business as normal at some point soon.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reassurance. Even so, were somebody to be very ill now with cancer or some other awful thing, they would, under the current circumstances, be very tempted to say, “This is related to the coronavirus pandemic.” My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said that people are swinging the lead. I do not think people are swinging the lead, but I do think that, since we have what is in effect a very lax system of self-assessment for any illness related to the coronavirus pandemic, for someone who was recently bereaved or, indeed, very ill with something that was nothing to do with the pandemic, that would be the way to remain enfranchised in this place. Surely, that cannot be right.
Very briefly, on proxy voting during the coronavirus pandemic, I am concerned that we are not really able to socially distance in a properly fit way. Instead of using our passes in the Lobbies, I would love to see us perhaps using them in Westminster Hall, where it would be much easier for people to remain apart from one another. We do have bottlenecks. It is very difficult for the doorkeepers to keep us all away from one another when there are bottlenecks as we are filing through the Lobby, even after using our passes, so I would like to see that change. However, I welcome all these changes, and I congratulate all those who have sought to improve the system.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you, Andrea Leadsom, for showing huge time restraint.
Business of the House
Andrea Leadsom Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. Local clubs are important—they are important community facilities—and they do not have the huge amounts of money of the premier league clubs. In my own constituency, both Paulton and Keynsham have very good football teams and it is going to be difficult without a clear path as to how they can reopen. The Secretary of State will be answering questions next Thursday and I am sure he will be able to give more information on this.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I know that my right hon. Friend and, indeed, the shadow Leader of the House are both as committed as anybody here to ensure that we change the culture of Parliament for the better. I would like him to please update the House on where we are on the 18-month review of the complaints scheme. In particular, when I met with him on this subject, we discussed the fact that it takes too long for a complaint to go from the initial phone call to the helpline through to whether it is upheld or refused. We all know that justice delayed is justice denied. So can he say what he is doing to ensure that this House is putting our own house in order and being the role model to the rest of the country that we all want to be?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work that she did to improve and change the culture, because she really drove this forward with considerable energy to the benefit of Parliament. I think that we are all agreed that we need a new culture and that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. We should be a place of excellence where people feel safe and secure in their employment and where people are treated properly. As regards the 18-month review, there is a paper in front of both the Lords and Commons Commissions to be considered to try to get this review done and done speedily. There have inevitably been some delays because of the coronavirus, but I entirely agree with her on the issue of speediness when people make a complaint. It is unfair both on the complainant and on the person accused if inquiries drag out indefinitely. She is right to raise that and I hope that it will be part of the inquiry—the 18-month review—though obviously that is not for me to decide because it will be independent.