Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Committee on Standards

09 September 2021 · 5 other contributors

Opened by Stuart Andrew Con Daventry

Standards & Ethics

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Stuart Andrew raised concerns about committee on standards in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The motion seeks to endorse recommendations for suspending Mrs Natalie Elphicke, Sir Roger Gale, and Theresa Villiers for one sitting day due to improper influence over judicial matters.
  • The speaker acknowledges that proposing the suspension is regrettable but necessary.
  • No specific asks of the government, commitments made, or minister's response are recorded.

How the debate unfolded

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

Opened the debate

Stuart Andrew Con Daventry

The motion seeks to endorse the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards, which suggest suspending Mrs Natalie Elphicke, Sir Roger Gale, and Theresa Villiers from the service of the House for one sitting day due to their improper influence over judicial matters. The speaker acknowledges that it is regrettable but necessary to propose such a motion, and he thanks the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards for their work.

Other contributors (5)
  • Thangam Debbonaire

    The Labour MP expresses disappointment over the improper influence of judicial matters by Members from the Government Benches. She highlights that such actions undermine trust in Parliament and damage its reputation, particularly considering the principles of democracy and the rule of law. The speaker also criticises the decision to suspend members on a Friday sitting day instead of a Monday.

  • David Davis Con Goole and Pocklington

    Davis raises concerns about the Committee’s report, suggesting that it sets guidelines for parliamentary correspondence with the judiciary. He warns that such judgment could curtail Members from addressing miscarriages of justice appropriately. The speaker calls for a full debate on this issue to ensure proper guidance is established.

  • Owen Thompson

    Thompson echoes the comments made by other speakers, agreeing with the importance of maintaining high standards among Members and the need to protect the independence of the judiciary. He requests that future actions consider suspending members on a day when their absence would have more impact.

  • David Davis Con Goole and Pocklington

    Davis questioned whether MPs were making representations to protect individuals' privacy in giving character references. He also commended the Committee for addressing the issue appropriately, stating that the punishment is reputational rather than denying access to the House.

  • Stuart Andrew Con Daventry

    Andrew noted his apologies for the absence of the Leader of the House and welcomed the report’s focus on clear guidance. He acknowledged that it is important not to scare Members from doing what they think is right, suggesting a debate on this topic could be beneficial.

Shadow Response

Chris Bryant

Responding to David Davis, Chris Bryant reiterates that the intention is not to prevent MPs from addressing miscarriages of justice but rather to distinguish between proper and improper ways. The Labour MP highlights strong legal advice provided by Speaker’s Counsel on the difference between these two approaches.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy