Commons Sense

House of Commons · General Debate

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme 2025-06-16

16 June 2025 · 13 other contributors

Opened by Lucy Powell Lab Manchester Central

Parliamentary Procedure

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Lucy Powell raised concerns about independent complaints and grievance scheme 2025-06-16 in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.

Key points

  • The Leader of the House of Commons moves to establish an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme to address inappropriate behaviour in Parliament.
  • The ICGS provides an independent mechanism for handling complaints related to bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct.
  • She highlights the need to consolidate policy and procedure documents and transform the assurance group into a permanent board.

How the debate unfolded

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

Opened the debate

Lucy Powell Lab Manchester Central

The Leader of the House of Commons moves to establish an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS), noting that its establishment in 2018 was a significant step towards addressing inappropriate behaviour in Parliament. The ICGS provides an independent mechanism for handling complaints related to bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct, ensuring fair and objective investigations. She highlights the importance of consolidating policy and procedure documents and transforming the assurance group into a permanent board as recommended by an independent review.

Other contributors (13)
  • Chris Vince Lab/Co-op Harlow

    Questions the necessity of amendments to increase the size of the ICGS assurance board, suggesting that it is not needed based on evaluations and independent reviews.

  • Charlotte Nichols Lab Warrington North

    Queries about representation of trade unions in the ICGS assurance board. The Leader of the House acknowledges the important role of trade unions and confirms that both house staff and MPs’ staff unions are represented on the ICGS stakeholder group.

  • Jim Shannon DUP Strangford

    Requests clarification on the grievance process for members of staff, Members of Parliament, and others working in the parliamentary community. The Leader of the House explains that there is a helpline and other ways to get advice and make complaints.

  • Lizzi Collinge Lab Morecambe and Lunesdale

    Collinge expresses concern over the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, questioning whether Jesse Norman's party supports an independent process and would make changes to the ICGS if in government.

  • Sarah Russell Lab Congleton

    Russell questions why Conservative MPs oppose a proposal that they typically associate with deregulation, arguing it could create additional bureaucracy around an independent organisation.

  • Alex Barros-Curtis Lab Cardiff West

    Barros-Curtis draws parallels between the ICGS's procedural autonomy and similar provisions within the Conservative party constitution, questioning why this principle should not apply to Parliament.

  • Rachel Blake Lab/Co-op Cities of London and Westminster

    Blake, a member of the House of Commons Commission and ICGS advisory group, defends the scheme's importance for maintaining trust and attracting talent into the parliamentary community. She emphasises that the advisory board governs procedures but does not make individual judgments.

  • Marie Goldman LD Chelmsford

    Supports the motion as a result of the Kernaghan review, outlines how the amendments tabled would negatively impact complainants' ability to raise issues and prevent manipulation of the system by those accused. Emphasises that avoiding political influence is crucial for ensuring fair treatment.

  • Laurence Turner Lab Birmingham Northfield

    Acknowledges progress made in professionalising Parliament but warns against complacency, expresses concern over amendments that could provide a cover for abuse. Supports the motion while raising questions about representation of workforce voices on the assurance board.

  • Alberto Costa Con South Leicestershire

    Welcomes the Government's motion to establish an assurance board and introduces a clear policy framework, stresses the importance of timely outcomes for complainants and respondents, and highlights the role of the Standards Committee in monitoring ICGS operations.

  • Lucy Powell Lab Derby Noth

    Supports the motion, stressing the importance of maintaining oversight by the Standards Committee and highlights that while changes to procedural rules will be made, policy decisions remain with the House. Acknowledges improvements in timeliness and quality but calls for further enhancements.

  • Alberto Costa Con South Leicestershire

    Chair of the Standards Committee who acknowledges past concerns about the ICGS but notes that improvements have been made. Supports the motion as it aims to ensure a better workplace environment, stressing cross-party cooperation.

  • Rachel Blake Lab Cities of London and Westminster

    Welcomes the opportunity for procedural reforms but raises concerns about the exclusion of certain stakeholders from decision-making processes. Supports the motion with amendments that aim to ensure comprehensive representation in the assurance board.

Shadow Response

None

Norman argues against the motion's proposed autonomy for the assurance board, insisting that decisions should be subject to House approval. He highlights concerns over bureaucratic sludge and non-democratic accountability.

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