Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee

Before we come to the motions in the name of the Leader of the House, I remind the House, in relation to motion no. 4, of the requirement for hon. Members to declare any relevant interest or benefit that might relate to the proceedings in which they are participating.

I must draw attention to the fact that the motion on the code of conduct and guide to the rules appears on the printed Order Paper with a small error. Paragraph 2(a) of chapter 4 to the guide to the rules refers to

“advice about public policy and current affairs”,

which appears incorrectly as

“advice about public policy and public affairs.”

That has been corrected online and a corrigendum has been issued.

The motion on the Modernisation Committee will be debated with this motion. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e) to the Modernisation Committee motion as listed on the Order Paper. I shall call Members to move their amendments formally and explain proceedings further at the appropriate time.

Standing Order No. 22C requires the Clerk of the House, as accounting officer, to set out the expected financial consequences of motions that have direct consequences of additional expenditure of at least £50,000. I should inform the House that a memorandum on the financial consequences of the Modernisation Committee motion is available in the Vote Office.

I call the Leader of the House to move the first motion, on code of conduct and guide to the rules, in the form it appears online.

I beg to move,

That, with effect from 25 October 2024, paragraph 2 of Chapter 4 of the Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members be amended to leave out:

“a) advice on public policy and current affairs;

b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and”.

With this we shall discuss the following:

Motion 5—Modernisation Committee—

That—

(1) There shall be a Select Committee, to be called the Modernisation Committee, to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon;

(2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 14 Members, of which 4 will be the quorum of the Committee;

(3) Members shall be nominated to the Committee by a motion in the name of the Leader of the House;

(4) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the Committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament;

(5) The Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee’s order of reference;

(6) That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the present Parliament.

Amendment (b) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), leave out “14” and add “18”.

Amendment (c) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), after “Members” insert—

“which shall include the chairs of the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards and the Administration Committee; the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards may take part in proceedings of the Committee, may receive Committee papers and may give such other assistance to the Committee as may be appropriate;”.

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Ways and Means. I look forward to working with you in the coming weeks.

Over the past two weeks, it has been fantastic to watch so many new Members hit the ground running in representing their constituents, and it has been a pleasure to see returning Members resume their business, bringing their considerable experience and wisdom to the Chamber.

This new Parliament offers a chance to turn the page after the sorry and sordid record of the last. We face a crisis of trust in politics, politicians and Parliament. As we know, it is a great privilege to sit in this House: to be an MP represents an opportunity to change the country for the better. Underpinning that privilege is a set of solemn responsibilities. Chief among them is the responsibility that we all have to embody the highest standards of public service. Those standards are articulated in the seven principles of public life, which apply to all those who operate in public life and that inspire and inform the code of conduct for MPs. It is perfectly reasonable for a constituent to expect that when they cast their vote in a general election, their candidate will be sent to this House to serve them, not themselves. An MP’s first priority, therefore, must be to their constituents, and the rules of this House must reflect that obligation.

This Government were elected with a mandate for change and the Prime Minister pledged to return us to a politics of service. Today, we take our first steps to deliver that. In line with the Government’s manifesto commitment, I am proposing a tightening of the rules on second jobs for Members of this House in the first instance. Under current arrangements, Members must not provide, or agree to provide, paid parliamentary advice. They must also not undertake services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. The rule prohibits Members from advising, in return for payment, outside organisations or persons on, for example, how they may lobby or otherwise influence the work of Parliament. However, the guide to the rules contains exemptions. The exemptions mean that advice on public policy in current affairs, and advice in general terms about how Parliament works, are not considered parliamentary advice.

During the election campaign, I made a solemn promise to my constituents that I would not take on a second job, apart from being chief of staff to my two-year-old son. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time to end public policy and current affairs advocacy roles, so that we all have time to spend on the greatest job of all—representing our constituents?

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is exactly the purpose of the motion. I hope he has time to do his other job of being a great parent.

However, the exemptions potentially act as loopholes, allowing a Member to use their privileged position and knowledge for personal gain. That may encourage not only a potential conflict of interest but a conflict of attention, with too much of a Member’s time and energy spent on things other than constituency or parliamentary business. I am very grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for his advice on this matter and for the diligent provision of guidance to all Members on adherence to the code of conduct.

The motion puts an end to the exemptions. It sends a clear signal to the public that an MP’s first priority is to their constituents and to the country. It is a first step. These changes shall come into effect three months from the date this motion is passed, which will allow Members the chance to make any necessary changes to existing contracts or arrangements.

I welcome the statement that the Leader of the House is making. Does she agree that being an MP is an honour and a privilege, and should be a full-time job; and that the problem of second jobs goes wider than the limited issues she is addressing in her motion today? An example of the sort of behaviour that in my view should not be permitted would be an MP acting as managing director of a financial services company headquartered in a tax haven, in which case they might have a conflict of attention, potentially assisting people to avoid tax when of course we should all be serving the public interest. Will she act urgently to put forward further measures to prevent the type of behaviours that I have drawn attention to?

The hon. Lady makes a really good point. Absolutely, this is about conflicts of interest and conflicts of attention. As I have made clear, and will further make clear in my opening remarks, this is a first step. We need to look at some of those other areas to give our constituents confidence that this will eradicate the kind of behaviour that she describes.

This House has considered such issues before. Most recently, the Committee on Standards reviewed the code of conduct in the previous Parliament. The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life also looked at the matter several times, issuing recommendations in 2009 and in 2018 on MPs’ outside interests. I thank them for their work. Today’s change forms part of an ongoing conversation that I trust will continue as we begin to rebuild public trust in this institution.

We will go further. The other motion before the House will establish a new Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons, fulfilling another manifesto commitment. The Committee will be tasked with driving up standards and addressing the culture of this House, as well as improving working practices.

I am one of many newcomers to this Chamber. I first spent time in the Chamber on Friday afternoon, when some irregular things happened. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is the conduct of Members in this Chamber, as well as issues around second jobs and conduct outside, that has given politics and all of us here a bad reputation? If we are to solve these problems, we should recognise that when people turn on the television or watch Parliament live, they want to see people listening respectfully—not heckling, shouting out or calling names.

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point. Part of what we are beginning today is about restoring respect for one another, both in Parliament and in politics. I have been really encouraged by the enthusiasm that new Members like the hon. Gentleman have for this agenda. I hope he will continue to be involved.

The Modernisation Committee will also look at reforms to make Parliament more effective, bringing recommendations and responding swiftly to the views of the House. It is intended to bring a more strategic lens to these matters and, where necessary, address the pace of change. This is not to cut across the important work of existing Committees, but to highlight interdependencies and facilitate closer working. I describe it as a clearing house, drawing on all the good work of other Committees.

The Government want to build consensus for any reforms, and bring the House together by consulting widely. The deliberations of the Committee will be transparent and published, so that the thinking that has informed any recommendations for change is made clear to Members—a very important aspect of the Committee. I intend to listen to colleagues, regardless of their party affiliation, as we take this work forward, drawing on the diverse range of views and experiences represented in this House.

I turn to the amendments on the Order Paper. I hope that I can provide reassurance to Members about some of their concerns. The existing Committee structures in this House—including the Procedure Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges, the Administration Committee and of course the House of Commons Commission—will have a vital role to play in the work of the Modernisation Committee. Indeed, it will draw heavily on their work and their recommendations. However, the pace of change that we have witnessed in recent years demonstrates the value that a Modernisation Committee will have when it comes to enacting recommendations. The risk-based exclusion of Members, improvements to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and the introduction of proxy votes to cover serious long-term illness or injury are prime examples of the glacial pace at which we often move.

Will my right hon. Friend explain the relationship between the Modernisation Committee and the ethics and integrity commission that is being set up?

I thank my hon. Friend, who has done much good work in this space over the years. The Government’s ethics and integrity commission will focus more on Government members, Ministers, civil servants and others, whereas the work of the Modernisation Committee will focus particularly on the House of Commons. There may be a relationship at times, but they will have a different remit and scope. I hope that answers my hon. Friend’s question satisfactorily.

As the proposed Chair of the Committee, I reassure the House that my door will always be open to Members and staff across the House. I see it more as a task and finish Committee—that was a good comment that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made to me the other day—that will take a strategic look at recommendations from other bodies and Committees, but not duplicate their work.

I note amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), which is about the engagement of smaller parties and their role on the Modernisation Committee. I hope that I have gone some way towards providing reassurance on aspects of that issue. I want to be clear that I want Members across the House to be heard, but the Committee also needs to be an effective body that delivers change. If the Committee is to work swiftly and generate momentum behind proposals for reform, it needs to be of an appropriate size. If each party were represented, as the hon. Member’s amendment requires, the Committee would have to grow considerably. That would not be proportionate with other Committees of the House, which I do not think is reasonable.

Given the likely breakdown, does the Leader of the House understand that only three parties will be represented on the Committee? It would be possible to flex that slightly, and have voices from more than just three parties on the Committee, while still keeping it relatively small.

I understand the hon. Member’s concern. It is an unfortunate case of the mathematics that apply across all Select Committees. On other occasions, in past Parliaments, her party has benefited from the formulas that are used. Beyond formal membership, however, I reassure the House that I want to commit to regular and meaningful engagement with any and all parties represented in this House and with Members who want to contribute.

This, to me, seems a little bit unfair. A political party that is represented in this House and got over 4 million votes at the last election will have no representation whatsoever on these Committees, yet a party that got 3.5 million votes will have plenty of representation on them. Does the Leader of the House think that is fair?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, his party has four other Members in this House; the House is considered in terms of its Members, not in terms of the popular vote. What he describes is a consequence of formulas that are long-standing and have brought about effective representation on many Select Committees.

I understand the mathematics—one party has over 400 Members, another has more than 120, another has 72, and so on—and I understand how Committees are made up, and how the Government and the Opposition work. However, when it comes to more parochial things, and while I am ever mindful that the Government have the right to a majority, does the Leader of the House agree that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Scottish Affairs Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee should include more representation from regional areas?

Perhaps there is an opportunity for a wider debate on the make-up of Select Committees. I can see some of the issues, but I reiterate that the Modernisation Committee needs to strike a balance between being effective and making fast progress. It needs to be representative, but not too big. I reiterate to the smaller parties my commitment to having ongoing, meaningful engagement, and to having them come regularly to the Committee to give evidence and views. Of course, the proceedings of the Committee will be fully transparent; we will have calls for evidence, and our deliberations will be regularly published for the whole House to see.