Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Independent Expert Panel

25 November 2020 · 8 other contributors

Opened by Jacob Rees-Mogg Con North East Somerset

Parliamentary Procedure

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Jacob Rees-Mogg raised concerns about independent expert panel in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • Moves the motion for the appointment of independent expert panel members
  • Emphasises the importance of an independent and impartial process
  • Acknowledges progress made since 2018 but highlights remaining work

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Opened the debate

Jacob Rees-Mogg Con North East Somerset

Moves the motion for the appointment of independent expert panel members, emphasising the importance of an independent and impartial process to address bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in Parliament. Acknowledges progress made since 2018 but emphasises that more work remains.

Other contributors (8)
  • John Spellar Lab Warley

    Questions the payment details and eligibility criteria for panel members, expressing concern about potential conflicts of interest.

  • Eddie Hughes Lab Wrexham

    Asks if Jacob Rees-Mogg would apply for the position.

  • John Spellar Lab Warley

    Argues that panel members should have a broader range of experience, including non-legal expertise from industry or trade unions.

  • Bernard Jenkin Con Harwich and North Essex

    Supports the appointment of an ex-High Court judge as chair, emphasising the need for authority and independence in the panel's work.

  • Kevan Jones Lab North Durham

    Questions why individuals from HR backgrounds or other sectors are not represented on the panel.

  • Valerie Vaz Lab Walsall and Bloxwich

    Thanked the Leader of the House for moving the motion, agreed with the majority of his remarks, drew attention to a report published on 19 November 2020 by the House of Commons Commission. Noted that the issue raised by Andrea Leadsom was a policy matter rather than judicial and thus not within the panel's jurisdiction. Mentioned Alison Stanley's six-month review and its importance for governance clarity and transparency. Emphasised the necessity of fair procedure for both claimant and respondent in grievance cases, highlighting the critical role of online surveys to gather public opinion until 4 December. Acknowledged the implementation of Valuing Others training and unconscious bias training, expressing satisfaction that these measures are being taken up by House staff.

  • Bernard Jenkin Con Harwich and North Essex

    As a member of the Standards Committee with no role in this debate, expressed disquiet over the matter being removed from their jurisdiction. Acknowledged that MPs lack faith in self-regulation due to past grievances being stifled and ignored. Supported the creation of an independent panel for ICGS cases, noting its juridical expertise as a significant improvement. Indicated intent to review House code of conduct based on lessons learned from this more professional approach.

  • Patrick Grady

    Welcomed and cooperated with the development and implementation of the ICGS process, paying tribute to former Leader of the House Andrea Leadsom and Perth and North Perthshire's Pete Wishart. Noted a distinguished panel of candidates for approval from across UK nations. Questioned if candidates were informed about yesterday’s unannounced withdrawal of motion. Emphasised the importance of proper investigation into bullying and harassment, stressing that the training programmes (Valuing Others and unconscious bias) are incredibly valuable.

▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy