Informing the House that Mr Speaker has not selected amendment (a) in the name of Sir Christopher Chope.

Supports what the Government have introduced and wants conclusions given to the Northern Ireland Assembly, Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly so that they can endorse them in their own regional Administrations.

Expresses concern about retrospective changes, particularly regarding paragraph 4.3 of the ICGS documents, and questions whether these changes can be justified as lawful.

Emphasises that it is fundamental to natural justice that laws should not be changed retrospectively; urges clarity on this issue for historical cases.

Questions who will decide whether a complaint falls within the scope of rules as drafted two years ago and expresses concern about different interpretations by decision makers leading to inconsistencies.

Expressed appreciation for Ray Mortimer's service to the House and his kindness, wishing him well. We will miss his cheerful presence.

Ms Vaz thanked the Leader of the House for outlining the position in relation to the motion and acknowledged those who started off the process of setting up the ICGS. She highlighted several changes made in response to Alison Stanley's 18-month review, including a one-year time limit on complaints from April 2022, an assessment stage where independent investigators can consider whether complaints have been fully addressed elsewhere, and definitions aligned with the Equality Act 2010. Ms Vaz expressed concern over unclear procedures and advocated for transparency in publishing full procedure documents. She questioned the fairness of retrospective changes to rules regarding non-recent cases involving former members of the parliamentary community and emphasised the importance of natural justice. Additionally, she pointed out a disparity in BAME staff usage of ICGS helplines compared to their white colleagues, despite evidence suggesting they experience more bullying and harassment. Ms Vaz also raised concerns about the costs associated with police officers conducting investigations for non-criminal matters and suggested that barristers could be an alternative. She concluded by thanking Ian Doubleday and Ray Mortimer for their service.

Expresses concerns about the Commission's endorsement of staff-recommended changes for clarification and updating, particularly paragraph 16 which modifies the scope of provisions on bullying and harassment. He fears these changes might be retrospective and cause litigation issues.

Supports the amendments proposed and acknowledges the importance of addressing workplace victimisation, bullying, disrespect, and harassment in Parliament, especially sexual misconduct cases without a cut-off date.

Welcomes the proposed amendments but raises concerns about discrimination against black, Asian and minority ethnic people. Emphasises the need for the ICGS to be more accessible for all staff, including non-desk-based staff from diverse backgrounds.

He clarified points raised by other Members regarding who may appeal to the IEP, reiterated that decisions must be based on the language of the policy at the time, addressed concerns about complaints taking too long and emphasised treating every Member with respect regardless of background.

Asked whether there are any specific historical cases currently under way that would be ruled out of scope unless the rewording of paragraph 4.3 was applied retrospectively.