Moves a motion to amend Standing Orders to enable recall to be triggered as a result of an IEP recommended sanction of suspension. He argues that the current discrepancy between ICGS and non-ICGS cases when it comes to their interplay with the Recall of MPs Act 2015 should be addressed by making sure that any sanction of suspension of a qualifying duration, whether made following a report from the independent expert panel or another committee, will lead to a recall petition. He also highlights concerns raised by Sir Stephen Irwin regarding retrospective imposition and the independence of the IEP.

Argues for retrospective rule change due to a lack of justice for the victim in a specific case where no action was taken against an MP despite serious misconduct. Emphasises the importance of setting high standards of behaviour and leading by example.

Raises concerns about natural law principles, questioning whether people should be punished according to the laws in place at the time of their offence.

Supports Labour's amendment due to issues with justice not being served for victims. Acknowledges progress made by the ICGS but highlights ongoing concerns such as access to the parliamentary estate during investigations.

Agrees with much of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire but expresses scepticism about lasting change in the House's attitude. Thanks Sir Stephen Irwin and other members of the independent expert panel, acknowledging their challenging cases. Raises concern over revealing complainant names if policy suggested by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is adopted. Criticises the 2015 Act for not addressing sexual harassment and bullying as seriously as registration of interests or paid advocacy offences. Argues that current standards make it impossible to expel Members through these cases, which should be rectified by legislation. Emphasises the importance of maintaining the independence of the independent expert panel.

Intervenes to thank Chris Bryant for his effective Chairmanship, agreeing that legislation versus Standing Orders is a key issue. Expresses concern about potential legal challenges if the route of legislation is taken.

She argued against voting along party lines and emphasised the moral imperative of protecting vulnerable constituents. She shared her experiences with rape complainants who felt let down by current measures, highlighting the need for safeguarding in Parliament.

He interjected to question whether Jess Phillips would vote along party lines, suggesting a lack of impartiality. He also noted that accusations against one Member did not include rape allegations.