Informed the House that amendments (a) and (b) have been selected. Mentioned Chris Bryant will move his amendments at the end of the debate.

Clarifies that the Government now agrees with the Committee, addressing concerns about ministerial reporting and proposing dual reporting.

Acknowledges the Government's progress but expresses concern over timely delivery of proposals for transparency in ministerial reporting.

Supports a unified system showing all registrable interests, including those of Ministers, in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for greater transparency.

Questions why it is impossible to achieve the same level of transparency and accountability as MPs with more staff resources available at Whitehall.

Considers it unacceptable for Government Members, including Ministers, not to have a similar responsibility in making their records accurate and transparent.

Raises concern about the delay since May 2022 in ministerial reporting and seeks clarification on when updated reports can be expected.

While not explicitly mentioned in his contribution, Chris Bryant was thanked for leading the cross-party inquiry into the operation of the code of conduct for MPs. His comprehensive and far-reaching work is acknowledged as sound by Debbonaire.

Paterson's case involving taking payments for conferring benefits on an individual or business was used to illustrate the need for stronger parliamentary standards. His involvement highlights the government’s previous mishandling of such cases.

Leadsom's amendment, intended to set up a Select Committee to look at the problems being debated, was supported by Debbonaire despite criticism from Michael Fabricant. The intention behind her intervention is acknowledged.

Fabricant clarifies that he voted against the procedure, not Owen Paterson's guilt, during a previous vote. He underscores his understanding of the distinction between voting on procedure and determining guilt.

Bell acknowledges the well-intentioned nature of the Government’s proposal but advises Debbonaire to tone down her political rhetoric, emphasising individual decision-making on the motion. He also highlights his reservations with the Committee's proposals and his intention to vote with the government despite previous disagreements.

Smyth requests a private session about the process, expressing concern over delays in addressing ethical issues. She suggests working with the Government to expedite the process.

Bardell agrees that the watering down of standards has repercussions for public perception and political accessibility, noting that it makes politics more dangerous for potential MPs. She supports Debbonaire's emphasis on strengthening parliamentary integrity.

The former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire, might want to speak before me, but that is at your discretion. It is important that the House understands that the Committee on Standards recognises what a huge amount of anxiety and tension the regulation of standards in the House of Commons can cause. The vast majority of Members strive—I was going to say “manfully”, but womanfully as well—to uphold the seven principles of public life and our standards, and to observe the rules. When I first joined the Committee, I was struck by how different the conversation is within the Committee from the conversation outside. There are only two other points I wish to make about the areas of contention. First, I argued very strongly for the changes to the descriptors of the seven principles of public life because the bald descriptors of the seven principles on the Committee on Standards in Public Life website are difficult to translate into what we actually do as MPs.

The Scottish National party welcomes any proposals that ensure that standards in this Parliament are strengthened and that MPs fully represent their constituents, uninhibited by external vested interests. Lobbying is an important part of the democratic process, but only when it is carried out ethically and transparently. Being a Member of Parliament is a full-time role—many of us realise that it is more than a full-time role—and must fundamentally be treated as such. Elected officials should not abuse their power as an MP to earn significant incomes in a second job. The increased transparency of MPs and their interests, financial records, and activities carried out behind closed doors merits and deserves public attention.

Ms Leadsom discussed the necessity of an extensive review that goes beyond non-ICGS complaints, as she believes these minor grievances are overwhelming the system and preventing serious issues from being addressed efficiently. She also raised concerns about the accountability and transparency of the House of Commons Commission.

Mr Carter intervened to clarify that the Standards Committee does not have a remit to look at the independent complaints system, as stated by Ms Leadsom earlier in her speech.

Ms Miller supported Ms Leadsom's points and suggested the need for a mechanism to review these issues effectively. She expressed uncertainty about how to initiate such discussions within the House of Commons.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire knows that I agree with nearly everything she has said, particularly about the Commission and the independent complaints and grievance scheme. Chris Bryant emphasises the importance of setting up rules to change the culture in Parliament, acknowledging that we have had a significant number of suspensions during this Parliament, which may be due to better processes but is still concerning. He supports banning MPs from providing paid parliamentary advice, requiring written contracts for outside roles, tightening conflict of interest regulations, and closing loopholes like Owen Paterson's approach. Additionally, he disagrees with the Government on the Nolan principles and ministerial declarations, arguing that all MPs should be treated equally under rules.

Asks Chris Bryant to undertake not to interfere with the process or adjudication of cases but possibly look at the governance of the scheme. He emphasises that the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) was established because Members of Parliament were not trusted to adjudicate on these matters.

Questions Chris Bryant about the difference between Back Benchers and Ministers in terms of taking hospitality. He notes that as a Minister, there was a permanent secretary who ensured declarations were made, whereas Back Benchers do not have this support system.

Reflecting on the Prime Minister's stance regarding integrity in public life, Wendy Chamberlain emphasises the importance of holding MPs and parliamentary parties to a high standard. She expresses disappointment with the Government for not implementing the code of conduct as recommended by the Committee in its entirety. Chamberlain supports tailored descriptors for Nolan principles and argues that it is necessary to provide guidance on how these broad principles apply differently to people carrying out various functions. She also questions why Ministers should be treated differently from other Members regarding declarations of gifts, hospitality, and financial interests.

I have listened carefully to all the contributions in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his assiduous approach to this matter as Chair of the Committee. I welcome the report's third recommendation for an outright ban on MPs providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services and support requiring MPs to have a written contract. However, the public are rightly angry because when MPs chase corporate cash, they short-change the public. Last year, I introduced a Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs with exceptions for frontline workers in public services, which the Government repeatedly blocked. The House must recognise that MPs end up being out of step with what the public want and need to be banned with small exceptions.

I will support both amendments but do not believe either goes far enough. In an ideal world, we adhere to principles conducive to our own benefit and that of the wider community, but laws are needed for those who do not. Past behaviour leads me to believe that extending the Nolan principles would not stop abuse of position as some feel entitled above such practices.

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and support amendments (a) and (b). I believe we have a responsibility to ensure politics are conducted with transparency, respect and civility. We must adhere to the highest standards of public life and set an example of robust, passionate discussion. The language, tone and behaviour of Members trickles down into wider society creating an unhealthy climate of abuse and intimidation that puts good people off entering public life.

Asked for clarity on single rule of £300 registration within 28 days, arguing that everything else was muddying the waters.

Suggested having a button or link on both registers to provide additional information about Members who are also Ministers.

Asked for assurance that there would not be a delay beyond March due to the current financial year constraints.