← Back to House of Commons Debates
Amendments to the Code of Conduct
23 June 2020
Lead MP
Jacob Rees-Mogg
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Parliamentary ProcedureStandards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 24
At a Glance
Jacob Rees-Mogg raised concerns about amendments to the code of conduct in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
The debate centres around the need for significant changes to restore public trust in Parliament due to past failures in addressing bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. The Leader of the House proposes an independent expert panel to handle complaints under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS), acknowledging that this is a constitutional shift but necessary given the severity of some Members' conduct.
Alberto Costa
Con
South Leicestershire
Welcomes the momentum for transparency and fair treatment, but raises concerns about the lack of legal recourse for MPs accused by an independent body.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Emphasises that only democratically elected Members have the right to be ultimately accountable to the electorate, and not to an independent panel.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Agrees with the importance of a duty of care for staff employed by MPs but also highlights the need for democratic accountability in severe cases.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda seeks to ensure that people have confidence in the system, which is a sensible approach given the need to protect those making complaints.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
The hon. Member expressed concerns about open debate leading to gossip and innuendo within the Chamber, questioning the confidence people would have in a system where such discussions could occur.
Valerie Vaz
Lab
Walsall South
Thanked staff for their work on the ICGS and Valuing Others training. She also mentioned racial awareness training and unconscious bias training, highlighting the importance of these in light of recent movements such as Black Lives Matter.
Alberto Costa
Con
South Leicestershire
As a lawyer, he expressed concern about the lack of judicial oversight for the panels' rules and procedures, questioning why MPs are denied recourse to the law in case of complaints.
Valerie Vaz
Lab
Walsall and Bloxwich
The debate concerns the House's decision to adopt a process for handling complaints against Members of Parliament, which is described as extremely urgent. Valerie Vaz emphasises that the process should be transparent, fair, and adhere to natural justice principles, including both parties being heard and the Human Rights Act applying. She supports an amendment that would ratify decisions without debate, arguing this preserves confidentiality and encourages complainants to come forward.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Jenkin supports motions tabled by the Leader of the House but also adds his name to an amendment for ratifying decisions without debate. He argues that evidence of mistreatment was previously managed out of public view, leading to a lack of accountability. Jenkin emphasises the importance of independence in the ICGS and calls for the appointment of a retired senior judge as chair of the panel to inspire trust and confidence.
Edward Leigh
Con
Gainsborough
Leigh questions whether it is acceptable to delegate control over who can be an MP from this House to an independent body, indicating concerns about sovereignty. However, his position does not provide a detailed argument or stance other than posing a question.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
The ICGS has been a two-year process since Dame Laura Cox's report in October 2018. The House of Commons Commission agreed to implement all three recommendations, including the independent expert panel for cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have sanction powers. Wishart expresses disappointment with paragraph D(1) of motion 5 as it provides no flexibility and breaks the spirit of Cox's recommendation. He highlights concerns that debates could compromise confidentiality and undermine trust in the complaints procedure.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Carmichael supports the point raised by Sir Edward Leigh regarding procedural fairness, noting that once a debate is initiated, it would be difficult to avoid discussing the merits of the case. This could lead to confidentiality issues for complainants.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Wishart reiterates his support for Chris Bryant's amendment, which would prevent a debate in the Chamber, emphasising that this aligns with the principles of Dame Laura Cox’s recommendation. He expresses disappointment over the procedural issue after consensus was reached on many aspects.
Andrea Leadsom
Con
South Northamptonshire
Leadsom highlights her role in introducing the ICGS and emphasises its core principles: confidentiality for victims and adherence to democratic conventions. She proposes an amendment that would allow a constrained debate on process within five sitting days in the Committee on Standards, ensuring due process while protecting confidentiality and adhering to democratic norms.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda
Bryant argues for the fundamental principles of a safe workplace and fair hearings for both complainants and MPs. He supports the idea of an independent, judicial process with due process rights for all parties involved.
Joanna Cherry
SNP
Edinburgh South
Thanks Chris Bryant for tabling his amendment and raises concerns about whether the new independent process will be robust enough to handle politically motivated complaints.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Compliments the Leader of the House on motions brought forward, highlights the importance of a thorough appointment process for the independent panel, expresses concern about revictimisation in debates regarding decisions already made by an independent body. Proposes his amendment to limit debate duration due to these concerns.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Supports Chris Bryant's position, emphasising the importance of protecting complainants from revictimisation during debates.
Jeremy Wright
Con
Kenilworth and Southam
Declares support for an independent expert panel to determine cases but argues against debates on sanctions due to lack of necessary information, risk of re-victimising complainants, and the potential ineffectiveness of such debates.
Alberto Costa
Con
South Leicestershire
Raises concerns that MPs will not have an appellate structure available if a debate does not occur.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
Welcomes the Leader of the House's comments, argues that debates will discourage victims from coming forward. Criticises inconsistency in supporting employment law when it suits them and highlights the absurdity of constituents wanting to protect MPs found severely wanting.
Laura Farris
Con
Bury North
Supports Chris Bryant's amendment based on her experience as an employment lawyer, highlighting issues with party allegiance influencing debates and citing a previous case in the House of Lords to illustrate how such debates can unfairly impact complainants.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Committed to making the House of Commons more transparent, proper and modern by properly employing and treating staff. Advocated for having properly paid, trained, and accredited office managers who can ensure good employment practices. Emphasised the need for Members to be accountable and improve their management skills.
Wendy Chamberlain
Lib Dem
North East Fife
Highlighted the importance of effective people management skills for MPs, given that they recruit staff themselves under time pressure. Criticised the current recruitment process as not conducive to making the best decisions and lamented the poor conditions for staff in Parliament. Supported Dame Laura Cox’s inquiry and its recommendations, arguing for an independent body to handle complaints against Members.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.