The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Chair of the Labour Party, on 25 October 2022.
Just one in five of the ministers around Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet table are women.
I know the Conservatives struggle to add up, but women make up half the population.
This isn’t a fresh start, it’s just jobs for the boys.
The statement made by Dawn Butler, the Labour MP for Brent Central, on Twitter on 27 October 2022.
I’ve written to Kemi Badenoch regarding her inaccurate comments in the House of Commons, in which she used parliamentary privilege to spread misinformation about Benjamin Cohen and Pink News. I’m calling on her to follow ministerial code and return to the chamber to correct the record.
The comments made by Anneliese Dodds, the Chair of the Labour Party, on 21 October 2022.
Sad to see the passing of Baroness Blood, a political giant and tireless campaigner for women and on integration in Northern Ireland. She will be greatly missed.
The comments made by Michael Fabricant, the Conservative MP for Lichfield, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.
To be clear: he [Boris Johnson] may not be the 1st choice of MPs (I may be wrong) but he most certainly is amongst the membership. He’s a #winner and the only MP with legitimacy having been overwhelmingly elected by the country. Without him calls for a General Election will grow.
The comments made by Chris Bryant, the Labour MP for the Rhondda, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.
I have deleted the tweet I posted of a photo I took in the Commons lobby last night, at the request of the Sergeant at Arms. I accept I broke Commons etiquette in taking the photo. I did so to expose a wrong. I have apologised. I’m happy to take it down as requested.
The statement made by Liz Truss, the Prime Minister, at Downing Street, London, on 20 October 2022.
I came into office at a time of great economic and international instability.
Families and businesses were worried about how to pay their bills.
Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine threatens the security of our whole continent.
And our country had been held back for too long by low economic growth.
I was elected by the Conservative Party with a mandate to change this.
We delivered on energy bills and on cutting national insurance.
And we set out a vision for a low tax, high growth economy – that would take advantage of the freedoms of Brexit.
I recognise though, given the situation, I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by the Conservative Party.
I have therefore spoken to His Majesty The King to notify him that I am resigning as Leader of the Conservative Party.
This morning I met the Chair of the 1922 Committee Sir Graham Brady.
We have agreed there will be a leadership election to be completed in the next week.
This will ensure we remain on a path to deliver our fiscal plans and maintain our country’s economic stability and national security.
I will remain as Prime Minister until a successor has been chosen.
Thank you.
The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.
I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace.
The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said. She said that the document was
“a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently”
that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?
What we know is that the former Home Secretary has been running her ongoing leadership campaign while the current one is too busy to come to the House because he is doing his spreadsheets on the numbers for whoever he is backing to come next. But who is taking decisions on our national security? It is not the Prime Minister, nor the past or current Home Secretaries. Borders, security and policing are too important for that instability, just as people’s livelihoods are too important for the economic instability that the Conservative party has created. It is not fair on people. To quote the former Home Secretary, this is indeed a total “coalition of chaos”. Why should the country have to put up with this for a single extra day?
Brendan Clarke-Smith
I am sure that the right hon. Member is aware that breaches of the ministerial code are a matter for the Cabinet Office, not the Home Office, and that is why I, not the Home Secretary, am here to answer the urgent question. The Prime Minister took advice from the Cabinet Secretary, as we saw from her letter, and she is clear that it is important that the ministerial code is upheld and Cabinet responsibility is respected. The Prime Minister expects Ministers to uphold the highest standards. We have seen her act consistently in that regard.
These were breaches of the code. The Prime Minister expects her Ministers to uphold the ministerial code, as the public also rightly expect, and she took the requisite advice from the Cabinet Secretary before taking the decision.
I am mindful that it is not usual policy to comment in detail on such matters, but, if some background would be helpful—I appreciate that much of this is already in the public domain—the documents in question contained draft Government policy, which remained subject to Cabinet Committee agreement. Having such documents on a personal email account and sharing them outside of Government constituted clear breaches of the code—under sections 2.14 and 2.3, if that is helpful to look at. The Prime Minister is clear that the security of Government business is paramount, as is Cabinet responsibility, and Ministers must be held to the highest standards.
The statement made by Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker of the House of Commons, in the House on 20 October 2022.
I wish to say something about the reports of behaviour in the Division Lobbies last night. I have asked the Serjeant at Arms and other senior officials to investigate the incident and report back to me. I will then update the House.
I remind Members that the behaviour code applies to them as well as to other members of our parliamentary community. This gives me another opportunity to talk about the kind of House that I want to see, and that I believe the vast majority of MPs also want to see. I want this to be a House in which—while we might have very strong political disagreements—we treat each other courteously and with respect, and we should show the same courtesy and respect to those who work with and for us. To that end, I will be meeting senior party representatives to seek an agreed position that behaviour such as that described last night is unacceptable in all circumstances.
The comments made by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, on Twitter on 20 October 2022.
One person was elected by the British public with a manifesto and a mandate until January 2025.
If Liz Truss is no longer Prime Minister there can be no coronation of previously failed candidates.
MPs must demand return of Boris Johnson – if not it has to be leadership election or a General Election.
The speech made by Allan Dorans, the SNP MP for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.
Good evening, Madam Deputy Speaker. I declare an interest in this matter as a member of both the Committee on Standards and the Committee on Privileges, appointed by this House in May 2021. I regard it as a privilege to serve on those Committees.
I start by agreeing with my friend the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter) about the lay members. The Committee on Standards consists of 14 members, seven of whom are MPs and seven of whom are lay members appointed by the House of Commons Commission following an extensive and comprehensive open recruitment process. All seven lay members have extensive knowledge and experience of public life at a senior level and bring a fresh non-political and unbiased perspective to the work of the Committee. I commend and thank them for their commitment and contribution not only to the report we are debating tonight but to the other work undertaken by the Committee on Standards. The lay members are invaluable in enabling the Committee to reach decisions that more accurately reflect the mood, consideration, interpretation and judgment of the country as a whole, rather than the narrow conclusions that might be reached by elected Members, with conflicting pressures and interests of their own in their Westminster role and in this echo chamber in which we operate.
The Committee’s recommendations followed our code of conduct review that started in 2020. The Committee took an extensive range of written and oral evidence and commissioned a survey of Members to draw up balanced and informed recommendations, and we were greatly assisted by independent advice from Sir Ernest Ryder, former Lord Justice of Appeal and Senior President of Tribunals for the United Kingdom. Sir Ernest carried out a review of fairness and natural justice in the House’s standards system, and the Committee published his review in March 2022.
Sir Ernest concluded that the inquisitorial process for code of conduct cases is fair and compliant with article 6 of the European convention on human rights—the right to a fair trial. Two of Sir Ernest’s principal recommendations were to create a single code of procedure, to be approved by the House, and to introduce a formal appeal system. The motions before the House today would implement those two central recommendations.
The Committee recommended that the Independent Expert Panel, which was established by the House in June 2020 to hear appeals and determine serious sanctions in bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct cases, should be the appeal body. If today’s motions are agreed, there will be an additional step in the process of investigating and adjudicating on breaches. The independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will continue to investigate allegations of breaches of the code. If the commissioner’s opinion is that the MP has breached the code and it cannot be rectified using her own powers, she will refer the case to the Committee for a decision; this is what already happens.
Once the Committee has published its report, the MP will then have 10 working days to lodge an appeal, if they wish to do so. The grounds are in line with the appeals grounds in Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme cases. The Independent Expert Panel would then publish the final outcome unless, in the case of a successful appeal, a case is remitted back to the Committee or Commissioner for fresh investigation or decision.
The Committee published its proposed procedural protocol in July 2022, which brings together material from the Commissioner’s information note, the current chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, and parts of the Committee’s own internal guidance into a single document that we hope is accessible and easy to understand. The protocol also sets out the new process for appeals.
I welcome the Government bringing forward today’s motions and I hope that the new protocol and appeals process will give hon. Members and the public confidence in the integrity and fairness of our standards system. I also sincerely hope that the Government will bring forward motions before too long to allow the House to debate and decide on the proposed new code of conduct and guide to the rules, and the important changes that the Committee is suggesting.
The SNP and I support the reform of practices to ensure that hon. Members of this Parliament have a fair process when allegations have been made against them. We also welcome the motion and proposals to ensure that standards in this House are strengthened, and we look forward to engaging on the proposed reforms. We also welcome the Government bringing forward the motions to implement the Committee’s recommendations on appeals and to approve the proposed new procedural protocol.
In addition, we recommend that consideration be given to training and awareness among hon. Members to provide them with information on the proposed changes. An incredible amount of work has been undertaken by the Committee on Standards regarding the motions being brought before the House today. I also lend my support and that of the SNP to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).