Contribution
The issue of scope was covered in the Kernaghan review. Kernaghan made it clear that the scope of the ICGS in when a case involves any two or more members of the parliamentary community. Perhaps there have been times when that scope has been unintentionally narrowed operationally. What the Modernisation Committee is considering is recommendation 3, which relates to a memorandum of understanding between the political parties and the ICGS in relation to how they deal with complaints. I think we can all agree that when complaints are within the scope of the ICGS, they should go to the ICGS and not to political parties, which, unfortunately, have shown themselves not able to deal with such complaints in the same way. That is not just a matter for the Modernisation Committee; it is a matter for the political parties as well, and we are making progress in that regard—particularly with the Labour party, which is keen to engage with the issue.
I will not detain colleagues much longer, but I will pick up on a few points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for her brilliant contribution, and for all the work that she is doing on the House of Commons Commission and the assurance board. As ever, I thank my colleague on the commission and the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who made an excellent contribution on why the amendments are gutting amendments, which we should not support.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I put on record my thanks to the trade union reps who operate in this House. They should absolutely be involved, through the stakeholder group, in a formal consultation about any changes to procedure. After this debate, I will approach the ICGS to ask it to consider allowing the trade unions to attend meetings of the assurance board in the same capacity in which they come to the House of Commons Commission to make representations, because that will be important.
Finally, I want to take on the arguments made by the shadow Leader of the House. First, these are not my proposals—they are not Government proposals. This is a motion on the business of the House in my name, because that is how such motions get to the Floor of the House. These proposals were put forward by an independent review—to which all political parties and all Members of this House had the opportunity to contribute—of an independent grievance scheme, which has rightly improved behaviour and standards. They are not my proposals; they are independent proposals. This body will not be setting the rules—that is just wrong. It will be looking at procedures, and at how they can be streamlined and made more effective. As I have just said, the rules—that is, the policies—will continue to be set by this House.
It is about time we moved on from the age-old argument that Members of this House have a right to behave however they want and the only time they are accountable for that is at the ballot box five years later. That is the argument that the shadow Leader of the House was proposing—I am sorry, but we put that argument to bed a long time ago, as I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards agrees.
If colleagues, cross-party, support the ICGS and the improvements in behaviour and culture that it has brought to this House, and if they want to see that body becoming more effective and having more timely and quality investigations, they really need to support today’s motion. As others have said, we all have a duty to ensure that this is a workplace where people can work safely and securely, free from bullying, harassment and bad behaviour.