Amendments to the Code of Conduct

Welcomes the momentum for transparency and fair treatment, but raises concerns about the lack of legal recourse for MPs accused by an independent body.

Emphasises that only democratically elected Members have the right to be ultimately accountable to the electorate, and not to an independent panel.

Agrees with the importance of a duty of care for staff employed by MPs but also highlights the need for democratic accountability in severe cases.

The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda seeks to ensure that people have confidence in the system, which is a sensible approach given the need to protect those making complaints.

The hon. Member expressed concerns about open debate leading to gossip and innuendo within the Chamber, questioning the confidence people would have in a system where such discussions could occur.

Thanked staff for their work on the ICGS and Valuing Others training. She also mentioned racial awareness training and unconscious bias training, highlighting the importance of these in light of recent movements such as Black Lives Matter.

As a lawyer, he expressed concern about the lack of judicial oversight for the panels' rules and procedures, questioning why MPs are denied recourse to the law in case of complaints.

The debate concerns the House's decision to adopt a process for handling complaints against Members of Parliament, which is described as extremely urgent. Valerie Vaz emphasises that the process should be transparent, fair, and adhere to natural justice principles, including both parties being heard and the Human Rights Act applying. She supports an amendment that would ratify decisions without debate, arguing this preserves confidentiality and encourages complainants to come forward.

Jenkin supports motions tabled by the Leader of the House but also adds his name to an amendment for ratifying decisions without debate. He argues that evidence of mistreatment was previously managed out of public view, leading to a lack of accountability. Jenkin emphasises the importance of independence in the ICGS and calls for the appointment of a retired senior judge as chair of the panel to inspire trust and confidence.

Leigh questions whether it is acceptable to delegate control over who can be an MP from this House to an independent body, indicating concerns about sovereignty. However, his position does not provide a detailed argument or stance other than posing a question.

The ICGS has been a two-year process since Dame Laura Cox's report in October 2018. The House of Commons Commission agreed to implement all three recommendations, including the independent expert panel for cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have sanction powers. Wishart expresses disappointment with paragraph D(1) of motion 5 as it provides no flexibility and breaks the spirit of Cox's recommendation. He highlights concerns that debates could compromise confidentiality and undermine trust in the complaints procedure.

Carmichael supports the point raised by Sir Edward Leigh regarding procedural fairness, noting that once a debate is initiated, it would be difficult to avoid discussing the merits of the case. This could lead to confidentiality issues for complainants.

Wishart reiterates his support for Chris Bryant's amendment, which would prevent a debate in the Chamber, emphasising that this aligns with the principles of Dame Laura Cox’s recommendation. He expresses disappointment over the procedural issue after consensus was reached on many aspects.

Leadsom highlights her role in introducing the ICGS and emphasises its core principles: confidentiality for victims and adherence to democratic conventions. She proposes an amendment that would allow a constrained debate on process within five sitting days in the Committee on Standards, ensuring due process while protecting confidentiality and adhering to democratic norms.

Bryant argues for the fundamental principles of a safe workplace and fair hearings for both complainants and MPs. He supports the idea of an independent, judicial process with due process rights for all parties involved.

Thanks Chris Bryant for tabling his amendment and raises concerns about whether the new independent process will be robust enough to handle politically motivated complaints.

Compliments the Leader of the House on motions brought forward, highlights the importance of a thorough appointment process for the independent panel, expresses concern about revictimisation in debates regarding decisions already made by an independent body. Proposes his amendment to limit debate duration due to these concerns.

Supports Chris Bryant's position, emphasising the importance of protecting complainants from revictimisation during debates.

Declares support for an independent expert panel to determine cases but argues against debates on sanctions due to lack of necessary information, risk of re-victimising complainants, and the potential ineffectiveness of such debates.

Raises concerns that MPs will not have an appellate structure available if a debate does not occur.

Welcomes the Leader of the House's comments, argues that debates will discourage victims from coming forward. Criticises inconsistency in supporting employment law when it suits them and highlights the absurdity of constituents wanting to protect MPs found severely wanting.

Supports Chris Bryant's amendment based on her experience as an employment lawyer, highlighting issues with party allegiance influencing debates and citing a previous case in the House of Lords to illustrate how such debates can unfairly impact complainants.

Committed to making the House of Commons more transparent, proper and modern by properly employing and treating staff. Advocated for having properly paid, trained, and accredited office managers who can ensure good employment practices. Emphasised the need for Members to be accountable and improve their management skills.

Highlighted the importance of effective people management skills for MPs, given that they recruit staff themselves under time pressure. Criticised the current recruitment process as not conducive to making the best decisions and lamented the poor conditions for staff in Parliament. Supported Dame Laura Cox’s inquiry and its recommendations, arguing for an independent body to handle complaints against Members.