PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee - 25 July 2024 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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;”.

Amendment (d) to motion 5, in paragraph (2), leave out “, of which”.

Amendment (e) to motion 5, after paragraph (4) insert—

“() The Committee—

(a) when it announces an inquiry, shall consider relevant reports from the Procedure Committee, the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards and the Administration Committee and shall invite those Committees to report on the issues within the terms of reference of the inquiry;

(b) shall not consider matters that fall within the functions of the House of Commons Commission, as set out in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978; and

(c) shall seek the views of the Speaker on matters within its order of reference;

() The recommendations of the Committee shall be subject to a motion in the name of the Leader of the House;”.

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.

The purpose of the Modernisation Committee is not to duplicate the important work carried out by existing Select Committees, but rather to highlight and consider their recommendations in the round. As the Standards Committee noted in its May 2024 report, the standards landscape in Parliament brings together an array of actors and regulatory bodies whose arrangements are often considered in isolation from one another. My hope is that the Modernisation Committee will be able to bring a broader perspective to these issues, and will work closely with the existing parliamentary Committees whose reports and evidence will shape its work. The new Committee will have the ability to collect evidence, and for Chairs to guest on it where relevant. I will be sure to rely on the expertise and experience of all Members.

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.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has just made a very good case, and has asked you a specific question: is it fair? From your lack of reply, I think it is implicit that you agree that it is not fair. You have it in your power to change that, as a matter of fairness and of listening to smaller parties. If you do not agree with that, I think constituents all over the country will find it absolutely astonishing.

Order. Will Members refrain from using the word “you”? You are speaking through the Chair.

What is fair is that this House is made up of Members of Parliament who are elected by their constituencies, and Select Committees or Sub-Committees are made up of proportions of those Members. That is fair, and it has always been the case. As an incoming Government with a clear mandate for change—a clear mandate to rebuild trust in politics and restore respect for Parliament—and with a very large majority in the House, we could have proceeded without trying to take the House with us, not setting up a Committee but simply tabling various motions on a diktat basis, but I did not want to take that approach. I wanted to take the House with us and to represent Parliament as a whole—all parties and all Committees. That is why I commit myself again to enabling the smaller parties to have regular, meaningful engagement with the Modernisation Committee on issues of particular concern to them.

Given that this is a Select Committee that you are setting up—[Interruption.] I am sorry. Given that the right hon. Lady is setting up the Committee specifically through a motion on the topic of modernisation, is this not an opportunity to demonstrate a tiny bit of that modernisation by ensuring that the smaller parties—not necessarily one member of each of them—are represented in its make-up? Would that not serve as an indication of good will towards the concept of modernisation?

As I have said, the Committee will engage with the smaller parties regularly and meaningfully. Let us say that there was one more place for a representative of a smaller party. Who would that place go to? Would that Member represent the various views of all the smaller parties? Would they represent Reform, the Greens, the Scottish National party, or the Democratic Unionist party? Everyone would have strong and differing views about that. When it comes to representing properly the range of views across the smaller parties, the commitment to ongoing, meaningful engagement, regular dialogue and inviting all the smaller parties to address the Committee on a regular basis reflects that range of views far better than having one representative on the Committee.

I also want to reassure the traditionalists among us. As I have said previously, this is not about altering the traditions and customs of this place; rather, the Modernisation Committee will build on the work of its namesakes, appointed in earlier Labour Administrations. Those predecessor Committees achieved great reforms in the way in which the Commons works: the introduction of Public Bill Committees, the arrival of Westminster Hall debates, and changes in sitting hours and recess dates. All those reforms improved scrutiny, and helped to make Parliament a more inclusive and family-friendly place of work. I would welcome suggestions from Members of further changes that it might be useful for the Modernisation Committee to consider in order to make Parliament a more effective, modern working environment that better reflects the country that it serves, and to help the public understand better the work that we do and the fact that we are here to serve them.

Let me turn to the Committee’s initial work. I hope that, as one of our first steps, we will look further into the question of Members’ outside employment. We will aim to consider, in conjunction with the Committee on Standards and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, whether any more changes to the rules or the code are necessary, particularly changes intended to ensure that a Member’s private or personal interests do not impede his or her principal duties to the House.

However, the scope of the Modernisation Committee will extend further than second jobs. Beyond reforms of the standards system, the Committee will consider the culture, procedures and working practices of the House. Parliament’s ability to hold the Government to account is essential. Our goal should be to maximise the time available for scrutiny of the Government’s legislative programme, while also ensuring that Back-Bench voices remain prominent and effective. Our constituents are best served when parliamentary time is spent both on robust scrutiny of legislation and on debates in which the issues that matter most to Members and to our constituents can be raised. I look forward to hearing the views of all Members when assessing how we can best achieve that, and whether changes are required.

Making Parliament accessible to all Members is of paramount importance. Over the years, good work has been done on seeking to tackle the inappropriate and wrong behaviour that we have all heard about and suffered from. The Speaker’s Conference in the last Session did important work on the conditions for Members’ staff. I am also grateful to Paul Kernaghan for his recent review of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, and to Alison Stanley, whose reviews preceded his. We will look at taking his recommendations forward. As recently as May this year, the Committee on Standards produced an excellent report on the standards landscape in Parliament, bringing together analysis of, and recommendations on, all elements of the standards system. Those pieces of work are essential, and they cannot be considered in isolation; we need to take a strategic approach to these issues, so that gaps in the system do not develop.

Today we have an opportunity to set out, clearly and firmly, the standards to which we should all aspire in this House—the standards that the public expect of their elected representatives. We have an opportunity to put politics back to service, and signal an immediate end to the politics of self-interest through a tightening of the rules on second jobs. We have an opportunity to establish a body that will examine the House in the round and bring it up to date. I look forward to this debate, and I am grateful for the huge amount of interest that the Modernisation Committee has already garnered.

It is a great pleasure to address you by your new title, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and I were first elected in 2015, and it is a real pleasure to see the first of the 2015 intake assuming the Chair to preside over our proceedings. I am delighted to be at the Dispatch Box for your first appearance in the Chair—the first of many over the coming years and, I hope, the coming decades—and I congratulate you on your well-deserved election.

As the Leader of the House said at the beginning of her eloquent and detailed speech, standards and integrity are critical to this House of Commons. We are the crucible of our nation’s democracy. Our constituents have sent us here to represent them, and they are entitled to expect the very highest standards of behaviour from us as Members of Parliament. We are fortunate that our standards in public life are higher than those in many other countries, but there is no room for complacency and we should strive constantly to improve and perfect the standards met in this House. That is a duty we owe the public.

I broadly welcome the initiative taken by the Leader of the House, but I want to make a couple of general points before turning to some of the specific matters before us. First, it is very important that these reforms, or indeed any reforms, command public confidence and are seen to be conducted for the best of reasons. It is important for us to proceed on a cross-party basis, because that will show that the measures are being taken not for party-political reasons but for the best of reasons—as I am sure they are—and will ensure that they stick. If there is a broad cross-party consensus, whatever reforms are made will endure and survive beyond any change of Government in the future—hopefully the near future from my point of view, but not, I suspect, from the point of view of the Leader of the House.

With that in mind, and given the need to involve all parties—we are talking not just about this Parliament, but potentially about Parliaments for decades to come—does my right hon. Friend agree that amendment (b), in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is entirely reasonable and, indeed, addresses some of the issues that have been raised by the minor parties, because it would potentially bring them into scope?

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, based on his long experience of the House. Amendment (b) does indeed address some of the points made in earlier interventions.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Leader of the House for the consultations we have had in the past three weeks following our appointments. She has been collegiate and constructive in our conversations, and I look forward to those conversations continuing in that spirit. But I might be permitted one very small grumble: the motion we are debating today was laid relatively late on Tuesday evening. Under the rules, it could have been laid later, so I appreciate that it was laid a little in advance, but we did not have a lot of time to discuss potential amendments between the two of us, or indeed with other parties.

I will make a request for the future. If we are considering motions that touch on these issues and seeking a cross-party approach, it would be really helpful to have some more time so as to be able to hold discussions between the Leader of the House, me and other parties to see whether we can improve the motions. I know that we have discussed this in general terms, but it is only when we see the detail of the motion in black and white—for example, the one on the Modernisation Committee—that we can discuss it in proper detail. I would appreciate having a bit more time in future, so that we can discuss that between us. That might avoid the need to table amendments, and it would enshrine the consensual approach that I hope she will take.

Let me turn to motion 4, which is listed on page 7 of today’s Order Paper under “Business of the Day”. As the Leader of the House has said, the motion removes two exemptions that exist in paragraph 2 of chapter 4 of the guide to the rules, which means that Members will not be able to be paid for providing advice on public policy or current affairs, or general advice about how Parliament works. That is a broadly reasonable proposition that we are happy to support.

I have two questions asking for clarification, which perhaps she will address in her summing up. First, if a Member is pursuing a paid activity that is not specifically to do with offering advice of the kind mentioned—for example, they might be a lawyer or doing work with a trade union on a paid basis—and the thrust of the work is not to do with that sort of activity, but they briefly undertake activity that might fall into the definition, how would the Leader of the House view that? Is there an absolute and complete prohibition, or is there some sort of materiality test that she would expect the Standards Commissioner to apply? It would be useful if she could provide clarification from the Dispatch Box.

My second question was raised by a colleague. On occasion, Members may be paid for a party political position or a trade union position, in the course of which they might give advice. To give a specific example, it has been the case in the past that the chairman of the Conservative Party has been paid not as a Minister, but by the Conservative party. Would the new rule preclude that person, or indeed someone being paid by a trade union—probably on the Labour side—from offering the Conservative party or a trade union advice on public policy matters? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could shed some light on how she envisages that working. Broadly, however, we support the changes and will not be opposing them—in the new spirit of cross-party working, which we are nervously embracing.

For complete clarity, it is worth mentioning that there is a third exemption in the rules that the Leader of the House did not refer to: limb (c) of the relevant provision, which is contained in paragraph 2 of chapter 4. Limb (c) allows Members of Parliament to be paid for making media appearances, journalism, writing books, and delivering public lectures and speeches. For the sake of complete clarity, it is worth saying that the motion before us does not make any changes to that third limb—the Leader of the House will tell me if I have got this wrong—so Members will continue to be able to be paid for those activities. She might just confirm that, but it seems a fairly clear consequence of the fact that only limbs (a) and (b) are being deleted, and not limb (c).

I will now move on to motion 5, on the Modernisation Committee, which appears on page 7 of the Order Paper. In principle, the Opposition will work constructively with the Leader of the House and her colleagues to achieve some of the objectives that she set out in her speech—we have no objection to the principle of the new Committee. Of course, we want to ensure that whatever proposals it brings forward are carefully scrutinised.

On holding the Government to account, there are lots of things about the way this House operates that are very important for Opposition parties big and small, but also for Back Benchers, including Government Back Benchers. I am sure that Labour Members have heard a bit about private Members’ Bills, which provide a really good opportunity for Back Benchers on both sides of the House to bring forward what are typically quite specific Bills to bring about a change that the Government might not have time to legislate for. Back Benchers can bring forward a Bill to do something that is important to them, and I think we all want to ensure that is protected.

Similarly, the Backbench Business Committee sets out the business for Thursdays. Government and Opposition Back Benchers can go before the Committee and organise a debate on a particular topic, which I did as a Back Bencher a few years ago. It is a really good way of making sure that an issue that matters to Back Benchers gets aired not in Westminster Hall or on the Committee corridor, but right here in the Chamber. I remember organising a debate on the persecution of Christians around the world, which would not necessarily have been debated on the Floor of the House; using that mechanism, it was debated.

Westminster Hall also provides a great opportunity to raise issues of concern to a Member or their constituency. Opposition day debates are very important as well, because they offer Opposition Members a chance to hold the Government to account. There are a whole load of areas that we want to ensure are protected for Government and Opposition Back Benchers, and for Opposition parties big and small. I am sure that it is not the Leader of the House’s intention to undermine the effectiveness of the existing mechanisms, but if they are considered by the Modernisation Committee, we will collectively need to ensure that the rights of Back-Bench Members of Parliament and Opposition parties are properly protected.

I want to speak to the amendments tabled in my name and those of my right hon. Friends, and I hope that the Leader of the House can offer some assurances that go beyond those she has given already. If she is able to offer such assurances, I will not move the amendments, but if her assurances are insufficiently robust, I will move the amendments and we will vote on them. I should tell Members that, typically, business of the House like this is not whipped. We will not be whipping Conservative Members, who are free to vote according to their conscience. I hope the Government are adopting the same approach and allowing Government Back Benchers to exercise their conscience. It is a long-standing tradition that the business of the House, which this is, is not whipped. We are each voting on the motion as individual Members of Parliament and not, I hope, according to a party political direction handed out by the Whips Office. That is the approach we are taking, and I hope it is the approach the Government are taking as well.

To be clear, the purpose of the amendments is not to impede or frustrate in any way the objectives that the Leader of the House set out in her speech, which we accept. In principle, we support them and will work constructively with her and her colleagues, but some concerns have been raised by my colleagues—some of whom may speak later—who have previously served on some of the Committees, such as the Committee on Standards. In the last Parliament, the Committee on Standards was chaired by the former Member for Peckham, Harriet Harman. She was the Mother of the House, and a very distinguished and highly respected Member for many years. The Committee has done a lot of work in this area, and it is quite complicated. The way that the standards regime operates is not straightforward, and the questions are complicated. When Harriet Harman chaired the Committee, she spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and published the report to which the Leader of the House referred.

Various existing Committees are relevant here, particularly the Procedure Committee, the Privileges Committee, the Standards Committee and the Administration Committee. They are all important Committees of the House and have all done important work in this area. They are all elected by the House, and at least one of them, the Standards Committee, has external members—I think one of them is a retired chief constable. The Committees have an element of independence, and I am concerned that the establishment of the Modernisation Committee might replace, cut across or in some way supersede or impede the work of the other House Committees, which are highly independent.

With the amendments, I have tried to make a couple of things clear, so I am looking for explicit assurances from the Leader of the House on the following points. The first assurance that I am looking for is that if the Modernisation Committee is going to consider a particular matter, it will consider all the previous work done by the four Committees that I have mentioned—the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees—and will commission the relevant underlying Committee to do a fresh report on the matter in hand and report up to the Modernisation Committee. I think that is what the Leader of the House has in mind, and it is what she said to me privately, if I understood her correctly, but I would be grateful if she could be explicit and make it clear on the record that that is how she intends it to work.

The second important assurance is that the views of the Speaker will always be sought and fully taken into account on matters that are relevant to the work of the Committee. The Speaker is elected by all of us— unanimously, as it happened—and his views and the views of the Deputy Speakers are important.

The third assurance is that matters that would ordinarily fall to the House of Commons Commission will not be usurped, as it were, by the Committee. The Leader of the House said to me previously that the functions of the House of Commons Commission are not defined, but they are in the House of Commons (Administration) Act 1978.

In amendments (b) and (c), I propose that the Chairs of the Procedure, Privileges, Standards and Administration Committees be added to the Committee so that it has 18 members rather than 14. That would make sure that there is an opportunity for a smaller party to serve in that capacity and that the expertise of those Chairs comes directly to the Committee.

In addition, I propose that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards attends the Committee. They would not be a member, because they would have to be a Member of Parliament to be a member of a Select Committee, but an attendee or an observer, so that the commissioner could offer his or her opinion on the matters before the Committee, receive papers, and give other assistance as required.

All those amendments are designed to ensure that the existing Committees are properly taken into account and involved, and that their voice is heard, because they are important Committees with a lot of experience. If someone looks at some of these issues at first blush, such as second jobs, they might think that they are quite straightforward, but often they are not. There are all kinds of questions about people who have family businesses or a farm, or people who practise medicine or are doctors, that require careful thought. I do not want the work that has been done previously and that will be done in future to be lost.

I am asking the Leader of the House to give explicit assurances. In her opening speech, she gave general assurances that those Committees have a vital role, and that the Modernisation Committee would draw heavily on their work and not duplicate what they do, but I am asking for the specific assurances that I have just set out. If she can give all those assurances, or a substantial amount of them, I will not move the amendments, because I want to proceed in a spirit of cross-party harmony if at all possible. The Opposition stand ready to work constructively on these issues to ensure that Parliament’s reputation remains the highest of any Parliament anywhere in the world.

Harmony is in all of our gift.

It is great to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is my first time in the Chamber with you in the Chair and I wish you all the best for the future.

I welcome this Government motion—it is great being on the Government side for the first time in 14 years—which fulfils another manifesto pledge within only a few days of the election. The introduction of a Modernisation Committee has already caused a lot of interesting discussion about its make-up, who should or should not be on it and why. Its introduction is important because standards and integrity in public life are important. Trust in politics is at an all-time low and trust in politicians is at rock bottom. We need to change that. The introduction of the Committee, together with other elements in the Labour party manifesto, will make a huge difference.

I will focus on second jobs. We should never forget the responsibilities and obligations that come with being an elected representative—a politician and Member of Parliament—in this mother of all Parliaments in the mother of all democracies. We should never forget what the general public put into us and their belief that we are their representative and voice in here. Many people who do not have a voice, particularly in deprived areas, put everything they have into the fact that their MP represents them fairly and justly in the Commons. That is important.

Being an MP is not a hobby; it is not something that people can just fancy doing. Perhaps people want to come on a Monday afternoon or a Monday night and leave as soon as they can, and they plead with the Whips to get away, but this is a full-time job plus. If it is not a full-time job plus for people, my view is that they are not doing the job. If someone is elected as a Member of Parliament with 70,000-odd constituents, that is a full-time job. I cannot understand how other people have been able to take up other jobs and occupations, and see being an MP as something that tops up their massive salary elsewhere, but that is what has happened and continues to happen.

I am sure hon. Members present will agree that when we were knocking on doors during the election campaign, people would often answer—99.9% of them were very polite—and say, “You’re all the same.” I was told a few times, “You’re all liars. Whatever you say beforehand, once you get into the Commons, you’re all liars.” I took great exception to that, but that is the general public’s perception. They think that MPs are greedy, they are liars, they are all the same, they want to make as much money as they can, and they are not bothered about the people they represent. That is what we have to try to clean up. I plead with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to make that a priority of the Modernisation Committee. We have to clean up politics.

We are not all the same. The vast majority of people in the Commons and who are elected are genuine, decent people who are there to represent their constituents and make life better, even though that is difficult at times, but there is a huge lack of faith in politicians and politics.

Many people feel as though Members of Parliament have a decent wage, but Members with second jobs allow the perception and the narrative that MPs are selfish and greedy to continue. I am sure there are MPs who are greedy, but the general perception is that everyone is the same. When I was working at the pit, I never in a million years thought that I would be on a salary of £91,346. It is a fortune—an absolute fortune—and we have to work for it and for our constituents. The average UK salary is £35,828—in the north-east, where I live, it is under £30,000—so £91,346 is a fortune. We are paid fortunes, man! We are nearly millionaires. I know that is not true, but I make the point.

In areas of greater social deprivation, no matter what we say or do, where we perform or where we do not, how many surgeries we hold and how much casework we have, we are seen as “just one of the MPs in London”, who do not care once we get that train, bus or car to the House of Commons; it is as if we become different people. In 2023, the Office for National Statistics deemed 51% of households in Northumberland to be suffering some form of deprivation. Last year, Sky News reported that MPs earned £17 million from second incomes. That is a lot of money when many people we represent use food banks, claim in-work benefits and are suffering greatly as a consequence of the cost of living crisis, caused by 14 years of destruction by the Conservative Government. The figure of £17 million from second incomes is enormous.

The former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, earned £4.8 million from writing speeches in his last year in the previous Parliament. I have a simple question: how can someone make £4.8 million during a parliamentary year, when they are supposed to be meeting constituents? What spare time might they have? I conclude that, in many ways, such an elected representative is not doing what they should be. Another former Prime Minister, Theresa May, made £2.5 million in the last year of the previous Parliament. Exactly the same issue arises. A former Conservative Minister earned £6 million as a commercial barrister since being elected to Parliament. People should not be making fortunes as lawyers when they are supposed to be in the House, determining legislation and representing their constituents. Members of Parliament should be in the House representing the people who voted for them, whether on education matters, employment or the cost of living crisis. There is enough to fill five days a week from 9 o’clock in the morning till 10 o’clock at night. Where any MP can find spare time is beyond me.

I hope the Leader of the House can guarantee that cleaning up politics is the motion’s No. 1 priority. As I have said, I believe that most people who are elected to the House are here for the right reasons. By the way, MPs have to have skins like rhinos because we get hammered right, left and centre, regardless of what we vote, or do not vote, for.

The motion is a great way forward and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has tabled it. It will address the issues I have raised. We lost credibility through the sleaze that happened, particularly during covid. People believed that all MPs were making but not obeying the rules. We must change that perception. The Modernisation Committee, along with other measures in the Labour manifesto, will go a long way towards restoring trust with the general public. It is much needed.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair—congratulations on your election.

It is important to be here today to debate what we can do to improve politics. The public who sent us here expect that. We know that something needs to be done and I hope that the Government will live up to their aspiration to offer change. Last week, the Leader of the House was kind enough to mention our previous work together on the exclusion ban. I am pleased to confirm that I, too, look forward to continuing those cross-party efforts in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) will speak about second jobs later, so I will focus my remarks on modernisation and the Modernisation Committee.

The Modernisation Committee that the previous Labour Government set up was not uncontroversial and we should recognise that the Committee will not have an elected Chair; it will be chaired by the Leader of the House. However, as an Opposition party member, I have had positive engagement with the Leader of the House. It is important to ensure that the Committee acts in the best interests of the House and does not supersede the remit of other Committees, such as the Committee on Standards, which has lay members at its heart.

The motion is about restoring trust in this place and in our system. We know that that is needed just by looking at engagement in the recent general election. Voter turnout overall was only 59.8%—only six in 10 registered voters either thought it was worth engaging with our democratic system or could do so. In many constituencies, the proportion was even lower—in some, it was as little as four in 10. It is not hard to see why, when we look back at the last Parliament.

I was a new Member in 2019. We came in straight off the back of the divisions of Brexit. Normal life and Parliament were then paused during the height of the pandemic. Just a matter of weeks after we were back in this place following the second lockdown, the former Member for North Shropshire, Owen Paterson, was found by the House to have breached the rules on lobbying, and the then Government tried to change the rules in relation to House business to allow him to escape censure.

Following that, I secured an emergency debate on standards under Standing Order No. 24. For new Members’ information, in order to secure an emergency debate, 40 Members must stand up in support of the application. I am pleased to say that, given the increase in Liberal Democrat numbers, I could muster the numbers from my own party now, but in 2021 I was pleased that MPs from the now Government as well as from the Opposition supported my application for a debate on standards. Looking back at that debate in preparation for today, I saw that I closed with the following remarks:

“This is about trust. It is about trust in the Government that they will represent the House and not the Government in House business, and it is about trust in us as our constituents’ representatives. That trust, once eroded, is very difficult to regain. Trust in our politics has been eroded in this past week. That includes all of us here in this House. On behalf of all our constituents, we must do all in our power to do our best to rebuild that trust as we take the next steps on standards.” —[Official Report, 8 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 81-2.]

Sadly, that did not happen, despite our best efforts. Personally, I am proud that my amendment to our Standing Orders to stop MPs voting on their own censure motions, as the former Member for North Shropshire did, was passed. With the support of the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips) and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who is in her place, the amendment to the exclusion motion was passed earlier this year. I hope that that decision by the House sent a message about the seriousness with which we in this place view safe- guarding. Despite some improvements, we still had rule breaking—and, indeed, law breaking, bullying, sexual harassment, and a string of serious questions about conflicts of interest. It is important to recognise that we are all tarnished by that brush.

The Government’s proposal is also about making this place a modern workplace. It is easy for people to forget that this is not just a place where politics and policy happen, but a place of work—not just for us here in the Chamber, but for hundreds if not thousands of MPs’ staff, as well as the House staff who support us. Indeed, as we start this new Parliament with a new intake of MPs, the churn of staff will be significant.

Websites advertising political vacancies are currently overflowing with opportunities, but I cannot help but wonder after the past few years whether people will want to work here. Can this be seen as an attractive workplace, where people can be not only safe, but secure, and where they can forge a meaningful career? I am sure that we all know people who we think were capable—in fact more capable than ourselves—of being effective MPs, but who took the decision not to put themselves forward for election. On that, I hope the Leader of the House will agree, perhaps as part of the Committee’s work or just generally, to implement the Jo Cox Civility Commission recommendations in relation to the abuse of elected representatives.

I have the pleasure of being Chief Whip to 71 MPs, having welcomed 57 new colleagues to these Benches. I know that the bad behaviour of some caused a lack of trust in all of us. I was pleased to hear the Leader of the House commit the Modernisation Committee to implementing the independent review of the ICGS published in May. I want to draw the House’s attention to the third recommendation, which says that if someone makes a complaint to a party about something that falls under the remit of the scheme, the party has to pass it on to the ICGS to be dealt with, rather than attempting to resolve it internally.

I am very aware that the violins for Whips are very tiny, but those Whips do have a difficult role to play in providing pastoral care and looking at discipline. For me, it makes perfect sense to ensure that, where there has been inappropriate behaviour, there is a guarantee of an independent review. I am pleased to say that what is proposed in this recommendation is already part of the new Liberal Democrat parliamentary party Standing Orders, and I would be happy to sign a public declaration accordingly on that basis.

I also urge the Leader of the House to commit to implementing the next steps recommended by the Speaker’s Conference, which reported last year. I had the privilege of sitting on the Conference and can attest to the time and cross-party work that went into that report. These packages of changes together would create something much closer to a modern human resources system, which will benefit staff and MPs. I think the public do accept that MPs are different, in that we are not employees, but they also expect us to adopt modern HR practices where we possibly can.

The underlying point for me, and something that I hope our new MPs can take on board among the excitement and honour of being in this place, is this: our jobs are unusual, but that does not make us special or different when it comes to upholding basic standards. I say that as a former police officer who was also not an employee during that time. It does not give us free rein to treat others poorly. We must not break the rules; in fact, we ought to be aspiring to a higher standard—to be exemplary—because of these unusual and wonderful jobs that we get to hold and do for our constituents.

We also need to look at the practices and support in place to allow Members to carry out their work effectively. I was disappointed to hear, for example, that the nursery in Parliament can offer places only from 2026. Given that increasing numbers of new Members with family responsibilities are coming here, we need to ensure that we give people the support to carry out that really important job to the best of our abilities.

Let me return now to the motion and the question of what the Modernisation Committee should be considering. Modernisation is not just about standards and behaviour and making this a 21st century workplace, but about making this a modern system fit for policy decisions to be made for the benefits of our constituents. We want a workplace that ensures that democracy works.

The first proposal that I ask the Leader of the House to consider might not be in her party’s best interests as it wants to power through its first 100 days, but in the spirit of putting our democracy first, I urge her to be open to revisiting the Wright reforms and reviewing the determination of House time. The 2009 report recommended that a House Business Committee, made up on a Cross-Bench basis, be able to decide how much time is given to scrutinising Government legislation. That may sound boring and technical, but it could be revolutionary. The Government would still be able to set the agenda and bring forward their manifesto and their legislation, but they could not tell us in the Opposition how much time we should take to properly scrutinise things. The Wright reforms were aimed at ending sleaze and making Parliament and the role of Parliament more meaningful. Those goals remain ever more relevant today.

Implementing this last change from the Wright reforms would make MPs more powerful in representing their constituents. It would connect us in a meaningful way, and allow the public to see that MPs are working on their behalf. It would certainly improve debate—something that I am hoping will improve in this new Parliament. It would make us more open and allow the public to truly understand the nuances and difficulties that have to be handled in legislation. Indeed, in that way, it would also benefit the Government. A modern Chamber of representatives also needs to be fairly elected. How many times have we heard someone sigh on the radio or in the pub and moan that politicians are all the same—that nothing ever changes, and that one candidate will inevitably win, so there is no point in even engaging?

There has been so much optimism in Parliament since the general election and new Members have been returned. I want to ensure that we spread that optimism out to each and every voter—a sense that they matter and that politics and Parliament are for them. A fair voting process is the absolute basic step that we need to take. I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) earlier in the debate. I assure him that the Liberal Democrats have, for the first time ever, delivered a number of MPs that reflects the vote share that they had in the general election. We will await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s report on the most recent election before we draw any conclusions, especially when it comes to voter turnout.

In conclusion, my party and I look forward to engaging further with the Modernisation Committee, and urge the Leader of the House not to narrow its remit. Modernising this place is a big job, but it is surely a worthwhile one. If we can get that right, we rebuild the trust that underpins our democracy, and make the laws and policies that come from this place all the better for it.

I now call Jack Abbott to make his maiden speech.

I call Lincoln Jopp to make his maiden speech.

I join others in welcoming you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for giving me the chance to make my maiden speech, and to contribute to this important debate on second jobs, speaking for the people of Spelthorne. I pay tribute to all Members who have made their maiden speeches, in particular my immediate predecessor, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). He is clearly going to be a fearsome and fearless advocate for his constituents, based purely on the fact that he is prepared to risk the opprobrium of the people of Colchester, the people of Norwich, and perhaps most impressively of all, Mr Ed Balls. I congratulate him.

I thank the House staff for the impeccable welcome that they gave us all as new Members. I was, for quite a long time, a soldier, so I was brought up on the mantra that two minutes early is three minutes late. It was therefore no surprise that at five minutes to 7 on the Monday after the election, I was the first in the queue at the top of the ramp. I saw two armed police officers, but there was also a Doorkeeper, resplendent in his uniform of morning coat and gold badge, and his beard. Not knowing what to expect, I approached him. He said, “Good morning, Mr Jopp.” I was beyond impressed. He continued, “You might not recognise me under this beard, sir, but I’m Matt, and I was with you in the Scots Guards in Afghanistan.” I went from being impressed to being deeply touched.

Having had the chance to listen to a large number of maiden speeches, I have noticed that when the name of the Member and their constituency flashes up on the screen, that is sometimes met with a knowing smile and sometimes not, depending on the name of the seat. It is like that excellent episode of “Yes, Prime Minister” when Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey Appleby start discussing somewhere called St George’s Island. Both of them suggest that they have some form of superior insight into St George’s Island, but it quickly becomes apparent that neither of them has any idea where on earth it is. Lest my maiden speech become something like that, I thought that I ought to tell the House where Spelthorne is.

Spelthorne is everything south of Heathrow airport until the Thames. We are in the administrative county of Surrey and the historic county of Middlesex. We are inside the M25 but not in London. Crazily, you can use an Oyster card to take a London bus there, but not the train. We are outside the clutches of the Mayor of London’s dreaded ultra low emission zone charge, but according to the Church of England, we report to the Bishop of Kensington. Hon. Members might think that all those special circumstances would give rise to something of an identity crisis for the people of Spelthorne, but not a bit of it, because no one who lives there actually calls it Spelthorne anyway. Instead, people say they live in Staines, Stanwell or Stanwell Moor; in Ashford, Shepperton or Laleham; in Halliford, Charlton Village or Sunbury.

By the way, all hon. Members sitting in Parliament today are here thanks to a notable resident of Stanwell: Thomas, later Lord, Knyvet. It was he whom the King dispatched to search the cellars beneath Parliament, resulting in the capture of the treacherous gunpowder plotters. Clearly, Lord Knyvet’s ability to navigate this place was a great deal better than mine.

I pay full tribute to my immediate predecessor as Member of Parliament for Spelthorne, Kwasi Kwarteng, who had represented the constituency since 2010. Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear that his name came up frequently on the doorstep in the last general election. Kwasi was a much-respected Back Bencher and Minister, as well as being a charismatic performer in this Chamber. A strong advocate for small businesses in Spelthorne, he instigated the Spelthorne business plan competition, now in its 10th year.

Spelthorne people are some of the hardest-working people in the country, so it is appropriate that I should be making this speech in a debate on second jobs; many of my constituents have them. I too have had a selection of jobs. As a friend of mine recently remarked, “Blimey, Lincoln, 25 years in the Army and 10 years in private equity. Where did you see more violence?” Now I am in Parliament, with the huge honour of representing the people of Spelthorne, and I am struck by just how important that is, particularly at the moment. I am sure that all Members want to be a strong voice for their constituents and a local champion for their area, and I do too, passionately.

However, we are also here to fulfil our second jobs: to make thoughtful contributions to the national and international debate on issues of great moment, none of which is more important, in my view, than the defence of the realm, given that the world is the most dangerous it has been since the end of the cold war. We are having a defence review, which will take time; but time may be running out, and the right course of action—increasing defence expenditure—is all too clear now, let alone in 12 months’ time when the review reports. I gently suggest to all Members of this House that to govern may be to choose, but it is also to act, and that the answer to autocracy is rarely more bureaucracy.

To finish on a lighter note, I hope that hon. Members now know a little bit more about Spelthorne. They are welcome to visit any time, whether to hear about the work of BP’s global technology centre as it seeks to decarbonise the world, or to see the largest film studios in Europe and the second biggest in the world after Hollywood. They might instead be interested in a flutter on the horses at Kempton Park—not that we on the Conservative side of the House are allowed to bet any more—or maybe just to potter along the Thames like “Three Men in a Boat”.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I said I would finish, and I do not make promises I cannot keep. I made one promise to the people of Spelthorne. It was that if they elected me, we would move to the constituency. Thanks solely to the efforts of my amazing wife Caroline, we picked up the keys to our new home in Spelthorne on Tuesday, and will have moved there by the end of the weekend. That is the first promise I have kept to the people of Spelthorne. I look forward, as I serve them, to there being many more.

I call Shaun Davies to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real privilege to make my maiden speech with you in the Chair, and a delight to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott). I cannot promise that my speech will be as witty as theirs, but I do support a proper premier league team in Manchester United—[Interruption.] I have lost the House already.

It is an honour to make my maiden speech in this House as the very proud MP for my home town. Telford is where I was born and raised, and where I am now bringing up my own family. I am Telford and proud. I begin by talking about those MPs I follow. My predecessor, Lucy Allan, worked on many notable causes. I particularly pay tribute to her tireless work in respect of the Post Office scandal, and to her constituency team, who have supported the residents of Telford over the past nine years. I would also like to mention and thank my friend and mentor, my immediate Labour predecessor David Wright, who served our town and this House with passion for 14 years.

I also want to pay tribute to the first person to hold the job of MP for Telford, a great supporter and crucial adviser to me, who now sits in the other place, Lord Bruce Grocott. Lord Grocott led me on a tour of this House in 1997, when I was just 11 years old—right hon. and hon. Members may be forgiven for thinking that I look too old to have been 11 in 1997, but that is what 14 years in local government does to you.

Telford is a new town in Shropshire, one that has grown significantly since its designation as a new town in 1963. A town with a proud history and strong local identity, we are home to the west midlands’ only world heritage site, the Ironbridge Gorge, the true birthplace of the industrial revolution. We have long-established communities such as Madeley, Oakengates and Dawley, which were recorded in the Domesday Book, and other proud communities too. I am of course a son of Telford, but also of Dawley, the birthplace of Captain Matthew Webb, who in 1875 become the first man to swim the English Channel. His monument in Dawley High Street says, “Nothing great is easy.” Telford is great, but over recent years we have certainly not had it easy.

Despite the challenges it has faced, just like our own world champion boxer Liam Davies, Telford has continued to punch above its weight. We have delivered housing growth and economic growth. We have outstanding education, with outstanding primary schools, first-class secondary schools, and we are home to the Thomas Telford school and to state-of-the-art further and higher education facilities, with Telford College and Harper Adams University in the centre of Telford.

We have a record number of green and protected spaces. In fact, if hon. Members would like to visit Telford, joining the 3.2 million people who do so each and every year, they will notice just how green we are. We are home to millions—and I mean millions—of trees. We are known as a forest city.

In Telford we are also incredibly proud to be home to some of the biggest defence companies. Right now, Telford residents are working on tanks destined for Ukraine and distributing essential equipment, from uniform to morphine, that will be deployed across all parts of the world to our brave armed forces. Our relationship with the armed forces is deep and strong. We are home to over 8,000 veterans—my own family have served in all three services—and our council became one of the first authorities to be awarded a Ministry of Defence gold accreditation for our work on the military covenant.

For the past eight and a half years, I have served as leader of Telford council, and we have done a lot over that time. We have regenerated our town centre, with the creation of Southwater. We have been a business-winning and business-supporting council: we are home to Besblock, which provides bricks to almost every house building company across the country, and to Aviramp, which provides airports across the world with boarding ramps; and we also provide wheelie bins to most households across the country. We have kept our council tax among the lowest of all councils in England. We have supported children with outstanding children services, delivered exceptional adult services, and been leaders within our sectors.

As well as being a council leader, I have led Labour in local government. I have chaired the cross-party Local Government Association. Indeed, I am proud to be the first former chair of the LGA to sit in this House rather than in the one down the corridor. I welcome to the House hon. Members and Friends who have served as councillors and council leaders.

In Telford, as in the rest of the country, poverty and child poverty are increasing. It is heartbreaking that almost one in four children are living in poverty. For me, that is not an academic issue; it is personal. I was in poverty as a child. I remember switching the lights off in our council house and laying on the floor as debt collectors banged on our door. I remember the embarrassment of queuing for a blue free school meal ticket as many of my friends got their paid yellow ones. That deep-down imposter syndrome remains and is very much with me today.

For too long, towns such as Telford have had their contributions to housing and job growth banked, but the investment and support that is so desperately needed to break the cycle of poverty has not arrived. Despite our housing growth, we have not had the investment needed over the past 14 years—the closure of our A&E and the relocation of our consultant-led women and children’s unit being examples. I say to my constituents that I will never stop fighting to bring services back to Telford. I pay tribute to Telford Crisis Support, which works with the community and provided 238,624 meals last year—up by almost 21% on the year before. It also provides clothes, nappies and the very basics of life, offering a vital lifeline to families.

Families come in many different shapes and sizes. From the age of 11, I lived with my nan, Betty, who is and was my guiding star. Although I lived with my nan from such a young age, my parents have always been there for me, too. I was lucky to have people like my great aunty Dil, who provided me with the financial support that meant I could be the first person in my family to go to university, where I read law and qualified as a solicitor. I am so lucky to have my own family now. I am a proud dad and stepfather to Evan, Millie and Owen—my wife Elise and I see no distinction in our family.

Part of the role of councillor is to be a corporate parent. Those in state care should be considered part of all our families. In Telford, 423 young people are in our care, and we support 249 care leavers. When I was the chair of the LGA, I described the local government sector as the corporate uncles and aunties of those in care and those who have left care. What, then, is this House? What are Members of Parliament to those children in state care? Maybe we are the corporate great aunties and uncles with resources, influence and wisdom—just like my auntie. What more can we do to support our children in care? To children living in council homes, in temporary accommodation or in our care, who are picking up free school meals, food parcels and avoiding debt collectors, I say this: “If I can get here, so can you.”

To provide a better future to all our children, we must reform our public sector. Yes, for some that is a dry subject, but it is the only way to fix our broken system. Reform is vital and prevention is key. The longer-term approach to investment—investing a pound now to save hundreds of pounds many times over—will be important. Investing in and focusing on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life can lead to better life outcomes and massive savings to the public purse.

We must always ask ourselves how public services can best serve the public. The answer is so often with the users of those services and those who work in them. When those who have skin in the game are empowered and trusted, the results are always better. We know that so well in Telford, after the recent work of Holly, Scarlett and Joanne. For too many, our country does not work for them. Not only are they disconnected, but they feel a million miles away from this place. That allows others to exploit the void—to divide us. We—all of us—should work together, despite our political differences, to help connect this place to our citizens, so that democracy does not just survive, but thrives. I hope that I can work on that nationally in the coming months and years.

I thank the people of Telford for trusting me with the incredible honour and privilege of representing my home town. I will stand up for Telford and for them. I know that we have a long road ahead of us, but I am committed to the challenge. After all, nothing great is easy.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be conscious that a number of people still wish to get in, so unfortunately I am going to have to put a six-minute time limit on speeches from the next speaker. Obviously, Members making their maiden speech will be exempt from that limit. I call Alberto Costa.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I welcome you to your new position. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) on an excellent and very detailed maiden speech. No doubt he will represent his constituents very successfully.

I am the only Member in the Chamber today who served on both the Standards Committee and the Privileges Committee in the 2019 Parliament; all of the other MPs, bar one, are no longer in the Chamber. The amount of work that we had to deal with in the last Parliament was substantial, onerous and unprecedented. As such, I welcome the comments that the Leader of the House has made and broadly support the motions that she has brought before the House. However, I would like to make a couple of points that I hope she will take in the spirit of assistance in which they are intended.

In the time allocated to me, I will briefly turn first to the motion on curbing some elements of second jobs as they relate to parliamentary advice. The Leader of the House may not be aware of the background to that proposal and where it first came from. In November 2021 the Standards Committee published a report—the fourth of the Session—and annex 7 of that report contained comments made by the then Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Committee—myself and my colleagues —thoroughly looked at the matter on a cross-party basis and concluded that we probably wanted to recommend the banning of paid parliamentary advice or consultancy.

We looked at the wording in the House of Lords, because that is the wording that the then commissioner first looked at. That wording is broadly identical to the wording that we currently have, so in our May 2022 report we came forward with the proposal that the banning of paid parliamentary advice should align with the House of Lords code. My question to the Leader of the House is this: is it her intention to ensure that the code in the other place is amended, so that we do not have an oddity where, for instance, a Labour peer could carry on with the activities that she proposes to ban, but an MP in this House would be unable to do so? That was not the objective of the Standards Committee when we first made our proposal, so it would be very helpful if, in her summing up, she could confirm that the appropriate mirrored changes will be made in the House of Lords.

I will now turn briefly to the other, much more substantial motion. I am sorry that there is a time limit, because I had many things to say about this motion, but given that I have a very short period of time in which to speak, I will restrict my comments. As the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) touched on, we as a House should remember that the Standards Committee is unlike any other Select Committee of the House of Commons, because half of its members are lay members—people who are not Members of Parliament. The total membership of 14 means that, if we take out the Chair from voting, the lay members have a substantive jurisdiction on that Committee. Many of those lay members will undoubtedly be watching this debate.

I cannot believe that it is the Government’s intention to create a Committee that will be looking at standards—even at a strategic level—that excludes lay members. When the Leader of the House was on the Opposition Benches, she was a strong believer in having lay members on the Committee, so will she look again carefully at her proposal, not only taking into account the balance of political parties but, importantly, ensuring that this new Committee has lay member representation, at least when it is discussing standards issues? My proposal is that the seven current lay members of the Standards Committee could elect one from among their number to sit on that Committee.

The other points I wanted to make were made by the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and I do not propose to rehearse them again. Suffice it to say that the Leader of the House said that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the Chair of the Administration Committee and so on would be guested on to the Committee, but if the Committee is to be an effective body that can deliver change, as she hopes, we must ensure that these people are not simply guested but that experience and knowledge is somehow brought in, perhaps with ex officio members instead of full voting members. I suggest she looks again at that proposal, and perhaps makes some welcome comments at the end.

To conclude, the proposal is a welcome one, but I urge the Leader of the House to look carefully at bringing lay members on to the Committee.

I call Chris Murray to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to make my maiden speech as you take your first day in the Chair following your election. It is also a great honour to follow the excellent maiden speeches we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies). They have made excellent and intimidatingly good maiden speeches. Keeping up with them will be a full-time job.

The constituency I represent, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, is geographically small but extremely diverse, comprising city centre, suburb, town and village. It stretches from the historic centre of Edinburgh along the Forth coast, and is unrivalled in both its natural and architectural beauty. It encompasses Niddrie and Lochend, hard-working communities of people who contribute much but whose talents and industry would offer yet more if opportunity allowed, held back as they are by a lack not only of work but of secure working conditions—there are lots of second jobs there! Organisations such as the Greenhouse Pantry in Craigmillar help people keep their heads above water in the cost of living crisis.

The constituency is also home to the diverse, vibrant communities of Abbeyhill, Southside and Leith Links, full of excitement and ambition but held back by a housing crisis. Edinburgh has seen the sharpest rent increases in Europe. Through Duddingston and Craigentinny, the seat stretches to Portobello and Joppa, Edinburgh’s seaside, where groups such as the Porty Water Collective are fighting the scandal of sewage in our seas. I also represent Musselburgh, the honest toun—perfectly sandwiched between capital, countryside and coast—where last weekend I attended the kirkin’ and sashing of this year’s honest lad and lass, Billy Innes and Eilidh Bonthron.

My constituency is home to two universities: the University of Edinburgh at one end and Queen Margaret University at the other. This makes the seat both intellectually dynamic and young. Students and recent graduates make their home there, and their ideas, skills and energy make them the engine for my constituency’s enormous potential.

I have been struck by the contribution of these young people. When the pandemic came, they were the group least at risk from the virus, but they unhesitatingly sacrificed so many moments in their lives to protect others. Arguably no generation has given up so much for another since the war, but to my mind their sacrifice has not been adequately acknowledged, never mind compensated. In this Parliament, we must secure for them well-paid, interesting jobs in the industries of the future; decent affordable housing; and a climate that is not disintegrating before their eyes.

In the past, events in my constituency have ricocheted out across the world. The fiery debates of the reformation and the rational arguments of the enlightenment were incubated in my seat in centuries past. Nevertheless, I am convinced our best days lie ahead, because my community has all the raw material for a vibrant, dynamic century. The universities and their research spin-offs, in fintech and biotech, innovative start-ups in their hundreds, and huge opportunities in the energy transition and green technology are all to be found there. If we are to have the economic growth the Government are aiming for, my constituency could be a powerhouse of it.

Incorporating, as it does, the historic old town of Edinburgh, culture, hospitality and tourism form the economic backbone of my constituency, not least in August, when it plays host to the Edinburgh international festival and fringe. Am I correct, Madam Deputy Speaker, in thinking that the convention is that MPs must inform another Member when they visit their seat? In that case I expect my mailbox to melt down when everyone comes to the Edinburgh festival next month. Of course, everyone is most welcome. The Edinburgh fringe is well known for its world-class performances, but also for amateurs trying to get attention by saying something shocking—the Conservative leadership contenders will fit right in.

While my constituency has many castles, theatres and museums, the most important building in the seat, indeed in Scotland, lies at the foot of the Royal Mile in the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. That is where the lifeblood of the Scottish political heart beats, and that is why it is fitting that I make my maiden speech as we discuss how to modernise Parliament. It is safe to say that relations between this Parliament and that one have not been good these past 10 years. That must change. I was heartened to hear in the King’s Speech an agenda that will address that, just as I was when the Prime Minister’s first visit was to my constituency. That speaks to a new era in Scottish politics of respect, constructive engagement and delivery, and I look forward to playing my part in it.

As society changes, so the Parliaments that represent it must change too, both in their Members and their practices. This Parliament is breaking new ground in how it represents modern Britain, not just in having the first woman Chancellor, a woman Deputy Prime Minister, and 190 Labour women MPs, but in having more minorities, more LGBT representatives, and more state-educated MPs. I am glad that in the latter two I am adding to the tally.

My generation grew up with Scottish devolution. Having two Parliaments is a fact of life for us. With the Scottish Parliament now 25 years old, there is much that this place can learn from Holyrood, and reciprocally there are things Holyrood can learn from here. No Parliament has a monopoly on modernisation; it is something to which we must all continually strive. I am pleased to see the Member of the Scottish Parliament for the Lothian region, Sarah Boyack, in the Gallery. I have learned much from her, and will continue to do so. Let our two Parliaments co-operate and learn from each other, so that they make each other better in synergy and symbiosis, rather than with rancour and anger. Let us remember as we modernise here, that this is one of several Parliaments and Assemblies in this land.

While I am discussing Scottish politics, let me pay tribute to my predecessor. Tommy Sheppard was an assiduous and dedicated constituency MP, and for that he is held in high regard by many in Edinburgh. In this place he was a dedicated champion of peace and justice in the middle east, and although he and I may take different views on constitutional questions, I hope my constituents will find continuity on both those scores. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, Sheila Gilmore, who has been dedicated to improving the lives of the people of Edinburgh, particularly the poorest, for many decades, including five years in this House. Her commitment to the community, even years after leaving office, is astounding, and rarely has a new Member been so supported by a predecessor as I have been by her.

The coming years will be critical for my constituency. If we can generate economic growth by attracting the jobs of the future, if we can ensure that people who work hard get good wages and decent conditions, and if we can seize the opportunity of the energy transition, bring opportunities for the young and take our place as a global cultural capital, then we can achieve our potential. For all its attributes, and given the challenges we face, my community needs a Government focused on its priorities. In fact, it needs both its Governments and both its Parliaments to do that. It needs both Parliaments to modernise to meet the demands of today and to not be distracted by the arguments of decades past, and Members of both Parliaments to learn from each other’s practices and to spur each other on. It needs both Parliaments to compete in claiming credit for improvements in people’s lives, not in casting blame for what has gone wrong. For my part, I mean to be an MP for use and not for show. Everything I do in this place will be aimed at deploying the power of government to unleash the untapped potential of my constituency.

I call Blake Stephenson to make his maiden speech.

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election and for taking your place. I thank the House for the warm welcome to the Chamber. I am grateful to be called to make my maiden speech in this debate on second jobs and the modernisation of Parliament. It is a tricky, but important subject, so in preparation I thought I would flick through “Erskine May”. I popped into the Library the other day and did so, and swiftly fell asleep. I came to the swift conclusion that a bit of modernisation in this House would not go amiss. Members will find that I engage in that debate constructively and thoughtfully as we think about how this Parliament and future Parliaments should progress.

I first congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—I have probably not pronounced that correctly, and I apologise not only to him, but to all his constituents—and thank him for that whistlestop tour of his constituency. I think I should take up the offer and go to Edinburgh in August over recess. I thank Members for all the excellent maiden speeches that have come before us. Members have set a high bar, which bodes well for this Parliament.

I am sure that all newly elected Members feel as I do that we have been given a great honour in being elected. I feel that most strongly because Mid Bedfordshire has been my home for 10 years, so I am deeply grateful to the electors who placed their faith in me at the ballot box. Prior to being elected, I had a 15-year career in the City, where I was responsible for compliance and conduct, keeping overenthusiastic traders and lightning-sharp minds in check and ensuring that they stuck to the rules—although perhaps not with your aplomb, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Within the constituency, many people are doing fantastic work in public service, running businesses, farming and investing for the future in their community or their family, or both. I am here to support them all in their aspirations by championing our dynamic economy and opportunities for all.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, who is now the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern). He is a Bedfordshire lad who returned from London last year to win the long and hard-fought by-election in our county. After working as a maths teacher and at the Bank of England, the hon. Gentleman became the first Labour MP to represent Mid Bedfordshire. He should be very proud of that achievement, and of course I will be very proud if he remains the last Labour Member of Parliament for Mid Bedfordshire.

Except for that recent interruption, Mid Bedfordshire in its various guises has been represented in this place by Whig, Liberal and Conservative MPs. I have some big shoes to fill. Lord Boyd, who represented the constituency from 1931, was a leading advocate for decolonisation and served in Churchill’s post-war Government. Stephen Hastings helped create the circumstances that led to the first steps towards the independence of Zimbabwe. More recently, Lord Lyell, who I believe is still the longest-serving Government Law Officer, was a Member up to 1997. Samuel Whitbread even represented part of the constituency, although I believe he may be more famous for founding a moderately successful brewery.

Many people pass through Bedfordshire on one of our major roads or railway lines—sadly, without a second’s thought for the county. Though lying within one of the smallest counties in England, Mid Bedfordshire has in its borders a beautiful and varied landscape. The outstanding chalk escarpments of the Sundon hills, the Sharpenhoe clappers—I do not know what a clapper is—and the Pegsdon and Barton hills offer stunning views across the county. The Greensand ridge, stretching for 40 miles, offers spectacular high level walking, and in the community forest of Marston vale—one of only 13 in the UK—trees are being planted in the pits dug to supply clay to the nearby Stewartby brickworks: a great example of how we can restore and enhance our local and natural environment.

While commuters may blink and miss it, constituents are deeply passionate about our beautiful countryside, our communities and our heritage. That is why proposals to build thousands of homes on green-belt land near Barton-le-Clay, Silsoe and Gravenhurst have been met with stiff resistance from local action groups, as have proposals to concrete over Steppingley road field, a site on the edge of Flitwick that is home to skylarks, deer, badgers and hares and sits alongside semi-ancient woodland. Similar concerns exist throughout Mid Bedfordshire, whether in the green belt or not, and those communities have my full support. Let us remind ourselves that the green belt is a Labour policy, and one that I am happy to support, but not if, in the words of Lord Prescott, it is one that they intend to build on.

As beautiful as Mid Bedfordshire is, it is not a sleepy hollow. It is within easy reach of Cambridge, Oxford and London. We host the world-class Cranfield University, numerous start-up technology companies, a Nissan research and development site, the Millbrook proving ground—for those who fancy a nice trip on a wobbly road—and Lockheed Martin, which is a significant defence partner working hard to keep us all safe at night. We are home to a vibrant high-tech economy and boundless opportunities to get on. I hope to spend time in this House and at home ensuring that our economy is working for young people from modest backgrounds like mine.

Let me conclude my tour of Bedfordshire by mentioning our county’s son, John Bunyan. He was the legendary puritan evangelist—not quite a man after my own heart—who was famous for writing “The Pilgrim’s Progress” in the 17th century while incarcerated for preaching without a licence. After the Bible, his novel is said to be the most published book in the English language—a record that perhaps one former Member for Mid Bedfordshire is intent on challenging. No doubt, if a ban on second jobs for Members comes to pass, those on both sides of the House may find that they also have a natural flair for writing similarly successful fiction.

We are a large intake of new Members. We have an opportunity to challenge the status quo and to breathe fresh life into our politics. Modernisation must be thoughtful, reflecting a consensus, which certainly emerged in my election campaign, that our politics must improve. But we must recognise that this place needs the experience and knowledge that comes from working in industry, commerce, law and, yes, even in politics, lest we become a House of politicians interested only in the next election, the next poll and the next headline. That is not what the people out there want. They want a competent Government to address the issues that they are concerned about and an effective Opposition to hold that Government to account. I will play my full role in scrutinising the plans that come forward to ensure that the Parliament that I am so proud to be a Member of embodies the standards in public life that the people of Mid Bedfordshire and across the country expect.

I call Alex Barros-Curtis to make his maiden speech.

I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. Thank you for allowing me to make my first contribution to the House in this important debate. In my previous role I was proud to play my part in changing the Labour party, so it is apt that I should give my maiden speech as we discuss changing and modernising this House. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friends and other Members and congratulate all those who have made their maiden speeches, both today and in the past few days.

It is a privilege to stand here as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Cardiff West. It is not an exaggeration to say that I stand in the shadow of some impressive individuals when it comes to my predecessors. I am the fifth individual since world war two to have the honour of representing Cardiff West; of my four predecessors, three stood under the Labour banner and went on to forge formidable careers here in Westminster. One served as Speaker of this House. Rhodri Morgan, my predecessor but one, served in this House for nearly 14 years before beginning his next act as First Minister of Wales, serving in that role for over nine years. Rhodri was a political giant, and very much loved and missed by my constituents.

As for my immediate predecessor, Kevin Brennan, as well as serving in a number of ministerial roles in the last Labour Government, his single biggest impact in this House might be his membership of the parliamentary rock band MP4. So we have a Speaker, a First Minister and a lead guitarist—for me, the pressure really is on. In all seriousness, Kevin served Cardiff West with distinction for 23 years, and he is a quality act to follow. That quality was clearly spotted by the House when Kevin gave his maiden speech, on 20 June 2001. After finishing it, Peter Bottomley, the last Parliament’s Father of the House, commented that Kevin

“will be one of the stars of the Parliament. He has the sort of speaking talent that probably guarantees his joining the Whips Office and being shut up for a bit.”—[Official Report, 20 June 2001; Vol. 370, c. 129.]

Mr Bottomley was prescient because, following the 2005 general election, Kevin was indeed appointed an Assistant Government Whip. I want to place on the record my thanks to Kevin and his wife Amy for their generosity, advice and support.

Having listened to a number of maiden speeches over the past few days of debate, I believe it has become a tradition to refer to one’s constituency as the most beautiful in all the land. As this place is steeped in tradition, with perhaps a sprinkling of modernisation to come, I would not want to disappoint, so I can confirm that Cardiff West is indeed the most beautiful—or, as we say in Welsh, prydferth or hardd.

Until this election, Cardiff West existed entirely within the boundaries of the city of Cardiff, but following the most recent set of boundary changes, the ward of Pontyclun in Rhondda Cynon Taf now forms part of it. Cardiff West’s gain is Pontypridd’s loss, as Pontyclun is a vibrant community, full of good people and a thriving high street that we must strive to maintain. On that note, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) for her work representing Pontyclun in the last Parliament.

Moving east, there is a diverse, prydferth and hardd constituency. In one corner is Llandaff, a city within a city that houses the beautiful Llandaff cathedral, one of two cathedrals in Cardiff. In St Fagans, we find the St Fagans National Museum of History, one of Europe’s pre-eminent open-air museums. In Canton there is a thriving cultural scene, including Chapter arts centre and the Corp.

Cardiff West also regularly punches above its weight when it comes to sport. It is home to Glamorgan cricket, Sophia gardens, the athletics stadium at Cardiff international sports stadium and Cardiff City stadium, the home of Cardiff City football club and the Welsh national team. Cardiff West also houses Riverside, Pontcanna, Fairwater and Pentrebane, Pentyrch, Radyr and Morganstown, Gwaelod-y-Garth, Ely and Caerau, to name but a few. Each area is defined by its own unique character, but the common thread that runs through them is a proud community, replete with families, local activists, sports clubs, volunteers and faith leaders, all committed to serving the communities they call home. That became clear to me during the election campaign. As their newly elected Member of Parliament, I will work with anyone who genuinely seeks to support Cardiff West.

In the past few days, the Labour Government have set out their plans to deliver on the commitments we made to the British people at the election. Throughout that election campaign I met countless constituents who demanded change, but not just for change’s sake. They wanted change with a purpose: change that would improve their lives by making work pay, by delivering a new deal for working people, by rebuilding their broken public services, by making their streets safer, by offering a more inclusive and tolerant discourse, and by making an offer of a future for our country that is more positive, more hopeful and more honest.

Of course, for us to deliver that change we must embody that change, and we need only look around the Chamber to see that. In this Parliament, 263 women were elected, representing a record high of just over 40%. This is also the most diverse Parliament by race, and this Parliament includes the largest cohort of LGBT+ Members of any Parliament in the world. Progress does not always move in a straight line, but if one looks around this Chamber and considers the tenor of maiden speeches we have heard in these last few days of debate, we see that there are indeed reasons for hope. At the outset of this new Parliament, that deserves special mention; while we can disagree in politics, we should always strive to do so with decency, honesty and respect. Doing so is not a sign of weakness, but of confidence in ourselves.

Being elected has been both thrilling and humbling in equal measure; I am sure that many of my colleagues across both sides of the House have experienced not dissimilar thoughts and feelings. However, I am not so blinded by the excitement of being elected to this great place to forget that this is not about me. It is about what I can and will do to repay the trust of my constituents and to fight for the causes that matter to them—causes such as defending our arts and culture, particularly the cuts that threaten the existence of the Welsh National Opera; supporting our Welsh and Westminster Governments to cut the levels of child poverty, recruit the new teachers we need and cut NHS waiting times; unlocking our green energy potential to deliver cheaper and greener energy; and making work pay by delivering on that new deal for working people. Ultimately, of course, it is not just about what we each say; it is about what we do. For so long as I am here, I will work hard for a stronger and fairer Cardiff West.

Finally, I want to thank those people but for whom I would not be here giving this maiden speech. The first thanks go to my family: my Mum, my Dad and my sister. My family have inspired my values of public service and have made me a better person. The other thanks go to my husband, who is up in the Gallery with my sister. We celebrated our six-year wedding anniversary during the final days of the campaign, but we actually met more than 12 years ago at a time when I was still struggling to acknowledge, let alone accept, that I was gay. Through all that, he had the love and patience to support me in accepting who I was and to be honest about that. I truly would not be here without his love, support and friendship. As a proud Welshman and a proud gay man, I am excited to play my part in the Government’s programme of national renewal. In so doing, I will endeavour to represent Cardiff West to the very best of my abilities.

I call Ellie Chowns.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your place. I pay tribute to the very moving and passionate maiden speeches we have heard from across the House today. I probably do not have time to go through all the details in them, but I shall remember not to fall asleep in the Library. I recognise the passion with which many people spoke about defending their constituents’ interests and, in particular, tackling child poverty.

I would like to speak to the formal topic of the debate: the modernisation of the House. I very much welcome the initiative by the Leader of the House in setting up the Committee and I look forward to feeding into it in whatever way possible, including through this debate. Modernisation should be about how we can become more efficient and effective as a House, and therefore more productive in our roles as MPs. That is what we have been elected to do. As I mentioned, I hope the Committee can be as representative as possible. It strikes me that as more than half the MPs are now newbie MPs—as, indeed, am I—there is perhaps an opportunity to ensure that the Committee is balanced in that way, so that the voices of new MPs, who are able to draw on a wide range of experience and perhaps have fresh eyes and fresh insight, which I think was mentioned in one of the maiden speeches, are represented.

From my perspective as a newly elected Member, I would like to offer observations on three elements of how the House operates, to feed into the deliberations of the Committee. I would like to speak about sitting, speaking and voting—very day-to-day activities. I have spent only three weeks in this House, but I know from conversations in the corridors that my observations are shared by other Members in all parts of the House.

My first point is about sitting. We are in a Chamber that is far too small to fit us all. I know that is not a novel observation, but as a newly elected MP, I find it really striking; it is quite extraordinary. I have served as a councillor for several years, and I have served as a Member of the European Parliament. In each of those chambers, we would have our own seat and our own desk, and we could plug in our devices, so that we could work off electronic materials. It seems extraordinary that we do not have space in this Chamber for each of us to sit and speak. Indeed, I was amazed to discover that there are seats in this Chamber on which we can sit, but from which we cannot speak. That seems an extraordinary limitation on the ability for everybody to participate in our debates. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we all had somewhere to sit?

The limitations on space also lead to some frankly rather ridiculous behaviour, such as the practice of queuing up at the opening of the Chamber to place a prayer card and book a seat. At times of great demand, such as the King’s Speech or Prime Minister’s questions, that leads to a contestation over space that simply would not happen if we had enough space for everybody.

While I am on the topic of prayers, there is a practice in this place of having Christian prayers. As the daughter of preachers, I am very familiar with those, but I suggest that in this day and age, in a country of all faiths and none, it might be time to consider an approach a little more like Radio 4’s “Thought for the Day”, with a moment of reflection at the beginning of the day and an opportunity to hear views from people from a range of faiths, and indeed with none.

I will move on to speaking. I am glad that a time limit has been introduced for speeches today; I am used to speaking in chambers with a time limit. Time limits aid the democratic process, because they mean that everybody gets a fair crack of the whip and an equal chance to have their voice heard in the Chamber. If we had more time limits, there would be more opportunities for people to participate, and perhaps MPs would be keener to participate in debates. There is also the process of getting a slot. I have been busy bobbing up and down to attract your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I did for five solid hours last week without managing to attract the Speaker’s attention. In recent days, a number of Members have wanted to make a maiden speech but have not been able to. The practice of bobbing might be good for the glutes, but I suggest that it is not so good for democracy. Perhaps we could find a more efficient way of allocating speaking time.

While we are on the topic, I note that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) spoke about the processes for Government or non-Government control of speaking time. An initiative to increase Back-Bench influence over the allocation of speaking time would be very useful.

My final point on speaking is about the culture in this House. In the few short days that I have spent in this Chamber, I have witnessed everything from excessive deference to, frankly, braying. As other Members have said in their maiden speeches, we really need to clean up politics. We really need to show that we are all here to debate in as positive a spirit as possible, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) said.

It is extraordinary to me that we do not have electronic voting. We have a semi-system. While I have been here, I have participated in five votes, which has taken at least an hour and a quarter. If we add up all our votes, it basically comes to a month of MP time. It is an utter waste of time and totally unproductive. We could be getting through far more. Let us get rid of the voting Lobbies. We can double the physical size of the Chamber if we get rid of them—that is a genuine, practical suggestion. We can take the opportunity of the decanting process and having newbie MPs to really modernise how we operate here.

Finally, if we want to be a truly modern House of Commons, we need proportional representation.

I call Sureena Brackenridge to make her maiden speech.

May I offer you my congratulations, Madam Deputy Speaker, and also thank you for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech and, in particular, to make it during this fundamentally important debate, which will ensure that we are not just a Government of service but a House of service. In my speech I will mention many people who have done precisely that—served others. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), and to hear such excellent maiden speeches from Members on both sides of the House.

It is an honour to serve the community where I was born, raised my family, and worked in local secondary schools as a science teacher and then a deputy headteacher. I pay tribute to my predecessors, Jane Stevenson and—given parliamentary boundary changes—Eddie Hughes as well. I thank them for their faithful service to our communities. I also wish to honour the late Ian Brookfield, former leader of Wolverhampton city council, who sadly passed away at the age of 57 after a short illness. Ian filled any room, and was a political giant. His legacy of celebrating the diversity of our city and fighting for the vulnerable will not be forgotten.

Take a mere glance at the roll call of previous MPs who have served Wolverhampton North East, and you soon realise that there are big shoes to fill. Jennie Lee, who when first elected was too young to vote, was instrumental in establishing the Open University. Ken Purchase, who served for 18 years, was a deeply respected constituency MP. Ken played a pivotal role in the campaign to save our beloved Wolverhampton Wanderers football club. Losing our club would have been devastating for the local community, not only in economic terms but in terms of our identity, as a city that truly loves our football club. A returning Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), was a Minister in the last Labour Government, and I know that she will serve tirelessly in this Government.

The long and rich history of my constituency is a fascinating story of how a small village established in 985 AD grew into the wonderful, diverse city it is today. It is a history carved out of wars, plagues, and economic booms and busts; a story of determined perseverance, progress and community cohesion. These values are a testament to what makes any place great: its people. The dawn of the industrial revolution brought factories and canals to Wolverhampton and Willenhall. We were ideally located to become one of the major regions involved in coal and metal production, especially the production of locks, keys and enamelware. We saw growth in manufacturing, with companies such as Guy Motors, Goodyears, and the Chubb and Yale lock makers. We were at the heart of the “workshop of the world”. If it was mechanical, we built it.

My journey to stand here today started with my parents migrating from Fiji as young adults. I was born and raised on a council estate, Ashmore Park, watching my father work all hours in demanding jobs. Times were tough back then, but they should not be that tough today. I encountered such challenges directly when I was honoured to serve as mayoress of Wolverhampton as we emerged from covid restrictions. I met extraordinary community groups and many remarkable people, including the first official freewoman of the city, Lisa Potts. Lisa protected her students at a primary school nursery from being attacked by an armed intruder. Selflessly, she placed herself between young students and the attacker, suffering horrific, life-changing injuries in the process. A George Medal recipient, Lisa remains in close contact with many of the students almost 30 years after that horrific day. With her humility, courage and compassion, she is the very definition of a hero.

Wolverhampton and Willenhall take great pride in showing our gratitude to those serving in the British armed forces, and to veterans. We have extraordinary veteran community groups and volunteers, such as Anne Partridge, a regimental sergeant-major, from the Staffordshire Regiment Association, a true leader known for getting things done. I was privileged to be part of the unveiling of the magnificent Saragarhi monument, commemorating the brave last stand of 21 Sikh soldiers from the British 36th Sikhs regiment and one Muslim cook who valiantly fought for the British Army. Unity is strength, and we see a wonderful example of that when the Guru Nanak gurdwara and St Thomas’ church work together for Wednesfield in Bloom; they have amassed several gold awards.

I saw at first hand the struggles that families face every day in my former role as a deputy headteacher. I could not believe the normalisation of hardship. Schools have become daily support hubs for families who are desperate in so many ways, facing challenges that should be consigned to the dustbin of history. It is these experiences that have inspired me to stand and fight for better. I want every child to be able to take a seat at any table, regardless of their background.

This Labour Government will break down barriers to opportunity, with free breakfast clubs in all primary schools, a reformed secondary curriculum that values creative subjects, a focus on the skills needed by the future workforce, and a children’s wellbeing Bill, so that children are safe, healthy, happy and treated fairly. Considering the high levels of deprivation in the schools where I worked, I cannot speak highly enough of the dedicated staff, incredible students and supportive parents. I have a message for my students: “I miss you, and I am proud of you. Remember to find what you love, and go for it with everything you have”.

Finally, my humble thanks go to the electorate of Wolverhampton North East, who put their trust in me. To those who did not vote for me, please know that I am here to serve you as well. The damage done will not be fixed overnight, but the work has started. I will serve all constituents to bring the change you deserve.

Congratulations to you and your colleagues on your new roles, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish you the very best of luck in dealing with all of us in our time here.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on her excellent maiden speech, and particularly on her passionate message to her students, who I am sure miss her very much too.

I want to speak about the motions on the Order Paper. There is a huge amount I could say about the ways in which this House should be modernised; I have been speaking and thinking about it for years. I am probably one of the few Members who has spent many hours poring over the Standing Orders, considering how they could best be changed to improve this House. Not many people are quite as geeky about that as I am. However, I will not focus on that. Instead, I want to talk about the motions in front of us.

Motion 4 has been badged as a “second jobs” motion. It relates to paid employment, but it does not include the paid employment that constituents think of when they think about second jobs. They think about the Members appearing on GB News weekly, but that is not covered in the proposed changes. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) said, constituents think about the people doing work for a financial institution, but again, that is not included in the motion.

The changes to the rules are good, but the motion should not be badged as relating to second jobs. What it does is increase the transparency and restrictions on Members of Parliament who seek to use their privileged knowledge to get paid employment. We all have knowledge of parliamentary procedure because we are MPs, and the motion prevents us from using that to get money. That is a laudable aim, but it is not the change that the House needs in order to fix the issue of second jobs. I will support the Government’s changes, but they need to go far further.

I have several concerns about the motion on the Modernisation Committee, beginning with its incredibly woolly remit, which is:

“to consider reforms to House of Commons procedures, standards, and working practices; and to make recommendations thereon”.

Its remit is not to modernise the House of Commons, which I would have been more supportive of. If we gave the Committee an understanding that it needs to drag the House into the 20th century—never mind the 21st century —by increasing the amount of modern working practices and the ability of MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament, that would be helpful, but the remit is not there. It is just “to make recommendations”, so I am disappointed that the Government have not gone further on that.

The issue of the make-up of Members is significant. It is not just about the smaller parties that are not the first, second or third in the House wanting to have a voice, but about the way that the Government have chosen to arrange the Committee and the number of Members that they have chosen to have on it, which mean they have guaranteed that it cannot have a Northern Ireland member. The membership will be divvied up between the Labour party, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems, so there will never be a DUP Member or anyone making decisions on the Committee who is struggling with the geographical challenges that are unique to Northern Ireland Members.

The SNP would have liked a seat on the Committee. I am pleased to hear what the Leader of the House said about trying to ensure that all voices are heard, but like the shadow Leader of the House, I would like to have had more conversations with her beforehand about it, so that we could have suggested our views on the best way for our voices to be heard. If she really wants to work collegiately, we are happy to do that, but unfortunately this has not got off to the most collegiate start. The Government should consider the best way to do that, because I am concerned about the geographical issue.

The Leader of the House spoke specifically about the experience of all Members in this place. I would like the Committee to consider hearing from former MPs who also have significant experiences. It may be that we do not currently have MPs with certain disabilities, or who have experienced the proxy voting system, but we did formerly.

During covid, I did a huge amount of work with the Procedure Committee, which met online almost every day in the early days of lockdown. We considered every possible way to make the House covid compliant and made a huge number of recommendations to the Government, some of which could be incorporated to make the House more modern as time goes on.

I am pleased that the Leader of the House committed that the Modernisation Committee will take evidence from those Committees, but there will still be no SNP voice to feed into the Modernisation Committee, because we are unlikely to get a seat on any of those Committees. It is all well and good taking advice from those places, but the smaller parties are again being restricted in how they are being heard. I am happy to support the creation of the Committee, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House tried to work in a more collegiate way than she has so far.

I call Neil Duncan-Jordan to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. I congratulate you on your recent election, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on an excellent address. I look forward to hearing many more such passionate and powerful contributions from her in future.

I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the parliamentary staff who have provided such excellent support and guidance to me, and I am sure to many others, over the past two weeks. I am sure that you can recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, what it was like when you first arrived here. Having the support of those staff has made the transition to Westminster much easier.

As a newly elected MP, I have to say that this is unlike any other workplace I have ever attended. That is why I wholeheartedly support the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a Modernisation Committee that will look again at the culture and working practices of the House. I hope to support its work in whatever way I can.

I would also like to express my thanks to my predecessor, Sir Robert Syms. He and I share a pride in representing the constituency of Poole. He served the House and his local residents for 27 years. Even in defeat, he was generous enough to offer me his assistance in acclimatising to parliamentary life, and for that I am very grateful. I also owe him an apology. After an exhausting three recounts, which lasted until 11 o’clock on the morning of 5 July, I forgot to thank him properly for his service. I hope I can rectify that today and wish him well for the future.

Having listened to a number of maiden speeches over the past few days, I am aware that new Members wax lyrical about how beautiful their constituency might be, and I will not deviate from that format. Anyone who has visited my constituency as a tourist knows that the beaches at Branksome Chine and Sandbanks are world class. Poole Park is a superb example of Victorian municipal pride, winning awards for its well managed green spaces, which are much needed in today’s busy world. The park borders Poole’s magnificent harbour. The harbour area has been inhabited since the iron age. It became a major trading centre with Newfoundland in the 16th century, and by the 19th century nine out of 10 workers were involved in some kind of harbour activity. We even had the odd pirate.

The link to the sea played its part in world war two, when Poole was the third largest embarkation point for the D-day landings of Operation Overlord, and the local Marine base played a key role in the Falklands conflict. Today, the marine industry continues to play a significant role in the town, whether through the manufacture of yachts, the fishing industry or associated tourism.

Of course, the most famous nautical connection is the headquarters of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which is celebrating its 200th anniversary. I was happy to add my name to the early-day motion, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), on the RNLI’s anniversary, and to pay tribute to the men and women who have volunteered over the years to save others, irrespective of who they are or where they come from.

You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a rising tide raises all boats. It is important for Members to understand that not everyone in Poole is a multimillionaire. Although the most expensive land in the country, known as Sandbanks, might be home to footballers and celebrities, nearly 7,000 residents in Poole struggle to cover essential costs from their monthly income, according to Citizens Advice. One in three of those are in work. In Poole, like the rest of the country, that got worse during the years of austerity and then the cost of living crisis.

That is why I want to pay tribute today to people such as Mel Meadowcroft and her team of volunteers, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, who run the community food store in St Gabriel’s church in Hamworthy. It offers local families a chance to buy the things they need at very low cost but, importantly, in a way that retains their dignity. Without that work, many more families would be in severe financial difficulty.

That is why I welcome the King’s Speech and the commitment to make work pay, as set out in the employment rights Bill. As a former full-time trade union official used to negotiating with employers and representing members, I am well aware of the need to reset the balance in the workplace to enable working people to organise as a way of improving their terms and conditions, as well as making the improvements needed to address low pay and inequality in the workplace. Banning zero-hour contracts, ending fire and rehire, and giving day-one rights on parental leave, sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal will be significant achievements of this Government and will bring about lasting change that will benefit millions of working people, including those in my constituency.

I will close by thanking some significant people who put me here today: the residents of Poole for having the confidence to vote for a Labour MP for the first time in the history of the seat; my wonderful Poole Labour family for their commitment to the cause and a tremendous sense of camaraderie; and my wife Helen for believing that this was possible. There is a great sense of pride in being here today and I will do whatever I can over the lifetime of this Parliament to repay the faith that the people of Poole, my party and my family have shown in me.

It is a pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker, to speak for the second day running with you in the Chair. May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). I wish him well, along with all the others who made their maiden speeches today. This House is enriched and blessed by the contributions of Members from all parts of the House. It augurs well for the future. We all benefit when everyone brings their knowledge and their expertise of other subject matters to the Chamber.

In the very short time that I have, I wish to refer to the important conversation that needs to be had about MPs and double jobbing. As MPs and elected representatives, our three main priorities are accountability, scrutiny and representation. There are ways to be critical and compassionate in relation to this subject. For instance, we should consider those who may have had established businesses before they came to this House.

A report in 2015 indicated that 26 MPs declared more earnings from directorships, paid employment and shareholdings than they did from their parliamentary salary. That puts a question in my mind.

On the other hand, I have never made any secret of how grateful I am to be able to carry on with my role. I dedicate so much of my time, as do others, to doing my job to the best of my ability. But we have seven Sinn Féin MPs who are elected but do not take their seats. They do not get a wage, but they can claim for office expenses.

Undoubtedly, there are issues in relation to double jobbing that need to be addressed, but many of those are down to individual circumstances. I do not know everybody’s circumstances, but an MP who is elected to this House could be here for five years—for one term—and, at the end of it, they will still have a mortgage to pay. What about the job or even the opportunity that they may have had before they came here? I just pose that as a question. I was a councillor and a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly before I became an MP. Once I was elected, I gave up my council job and my role as an MLA. I gave the business that I owned to my son. That is what we can do, but consideration should be given to both sides of the argument. However, my stance is clear. My No. 1 priority is doing the job that I was elected to do, which is to represent the people of Strangford, to scrutinise Government legislation, and to be held accountable to my constituents.

The other issue that I wish to speak to is modernisation. I can well remember coming to this House, sitting on these green Benches, and feeling the overwhelming weight of responsibility on my shoulders. I am innately aware of what it means to have the honour of representing my constituency in the greatest seat of democracy.

Although I noted the difference in the way that things were handled when I was first elected in 2010 and struggled to come to terms with some of the traditional aspects of the House, I now treasure those traditions. There are those who express the other point of view and want to see lots of change, and then there are those who, like me, see the traditions as something to hold on to.

I agree with the rationale behind these timeless traditions, which is something that I am afraid we will lose if we blindly modernise. Mr Speaker said to hon. Members, “If you want to catch my eye, wear a tie.” Well, everybody who can and should wear a tie is wearing one today. I support the rationale behind that. I think it is the right way to do things.

If we do not move with the times, then the times will move without us; however, I urge caution. We should ensure that not one thing is changed simply because we can rather than because we should. Not all modernisations are welcome. There are now rules in place that preclude me from being an officer of more than six all-party parliamentary groups. That has been difficult, as I am letting some of those groups down. I put that forward as a point of view; obviously others will take a different view on that.

Some modernisations are necessary. The overhaul of financial claims was a vital tool in restoring public confidence. Modernisation of the voting system was necessary for functionality during covid, and I am thankful that the flexibility was there, but we need to be incredibly careful, if we consider changes to Commons voting, that they do not result in more absenteeism and remote voting. Some have suggested that we change the voting system; I suggest that we do not. Modernisation of the maternity system was long overdue, and I am thankful for that. We need modernisation, but it must be for a clear purpose and not for ease of operation.

The traditions of this place should not be dismissed as mere traditions; there is wisdom behind many of them that must be protected. I urge the House to ensure that such protection is in place. I am all for modernisation as necessary, but I feel strongly that it must be done with wisdom and sensitivity, and that our centuries-long traditions should not be abandoned to give an appearance of modern society. Yes, I would love to speak first in every debate, but I am not going to. I would not be allowed to do so; it would not be the right way of doing things. I respect the convention that would prevent it as ancient but necessary. Every single issue discussed must be considered in that way.

Just because something has aged does not mean that it ceases to be of use. That must be the premise of any discussion on modernisation in this great House, in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—better together. With all the culture, history and traditions from all parts of society that we have here, we can work together to make changes in the right way—not change for change’s sake, but the changes that are necessary.

I call Gordon McKee to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election and welcome you to the Chair, although it feels a bit weird to welcome anyone here, given that I have been here for about two minutes. I follow on from the excellent contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), and for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) among others. I praise in particular my hon. Friend for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh, both because he gave an excellent speech and because his mum is one of my constituents.

As I start this new job, I have been thinking a lot about my family; I was doing so while preparing my remarks today. I was thinking in particular of my grandpa, who was a coalminer in the coalfields of Lanarkshire, just outside Glasgow. When I was a wee boy, he would tell me of the conditions that he worked in: “Darkness,” he said, “so black that you could hold your hand right in front of your eyes and still not be able to see it.” In that darkness, he would toil away, unable to imagine his own future, let alone that of his grandweans, as he would say. All the while he toiled, he was inhaling fumes so toxic that later in life he would have lung cancer, and live the rest of his life with just one lung.

My dad, a welder, is here today—off during the Glasgow fair—along with my mum, who runs her own business, to watch me from the Gallery. My career so far has been very different from that of my parents and grandparents. For a start, they have a proper job, whereas I am now doing this for a living, but it has been different for two related reasons. The first is the Labour party—both in the sense that it has helped to provide me with a new job, and in the protections that it has delivered for working people. Health and safety legislation, delivered by Labour and built by the trade union movement, have ended the kind of conditions that my grandparents worked in. The second reason my career has been different is technology. I suspect that today in Britain there are more bitcoin miners than coalminers, and that is ultimately a good thing. Coalmining was difficult, hard, laborious work.

As a kid I spent many long hours in front of my computer and, while much of that was spent playing FIFA against my wee brother Mark, some of it was more productive, because I taught myself to code. I watched YouTube videos and over weeks, months and years I learned how to build software. I developed iPhone apps that were used around the world, meaning that code written on my laptop in Glasgow could be pushed out to devices around the world in seconds and that this 19-year-old kid in his childhood bedroom could run an app servicing people from Los Angeles to Dubai.

If it can do that, technology can reform our public services too. Technology might even help to reform this House, as we are debating today. I hope and know that high-growth, innovative businesses in my home city of Glasgow will be a key part of that.

Much has been said and written about Glasgow over the years, but one thing sticks with me in particular. Anthony Bourdain was not a man known for his parliamentary language, so let us just say that he described Glasgow as the most unpretentious place on earth—an “antidote” to the world, in his words,

“so unapologetically working class and attitude-free”.

I think he was right because, of all the things I love about Glasgow, it is our people and our humour that I enjoy most. If someone ever gets a wee bit too big for their boots, returning home to Glasgow will soon put an end to that—something I am sure will be increasingly useful the longer I spend in this place.

Unlike many Glaswegians, my admiration even extends to some of Glasgow’s politicians. It is customary in speeches such as this to praise our predecessors, but I know that for some that will be done through slightly gritted teeth at the end of a long and bitter-fought election campaign. In my case, I talk about my predecessor with genuine warmth and admiration. Stewart McDonald served the people of Glasgow South diligently and built an enviable reputation in this place. He was particularly respected for his long-standing support for the people of Ukraine, something that saw him awarded the Ukrainian order of merit. If I leave this place having done half as much as he did for people around the world fighting for democracy, I will leave a happy man.

Before Stewart, there were Labour predecessors. There was Tom Harris, who has been personally kind to me; John Maxton, now Lord Maxton, whose son taught me modern studies in high school, believe it or not—although I will leave it up to others to decide whether he did a good or bad job of that—and of course Teddy Taylor, who is still remembered fondly by many of my constituents.

I would also like to mention two other Members of this House who had a big impact on my life, both from Glasgow. The former Member for East Kilbride, Adam Ingram, grew up in the east end of Glasgow and was one of the first people I ever spoke to in the Labour party. His advice and wise counsel has been a constant source of support to me over the years, and I am incredibly grateful. The other is a southsider, my friend and the former Member for Glasgow Central, Anas Sarwar. I had the great privilege of serving as the director of Anas’s successful leadership campaign to become leader of Scottish Labour. Three and a half years ago, as we sat beginning that campaign, it was hard to imagine what the future might hold, but even in our most optimistic of moments, I do not think we would have predicted this. I stand here as one of 37 Scottish Labour MPs.

Having praised three Glaswegians, I will do something unusual for a Glasgow MP and praise someone from Edinburgh. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has been a friend of mine for many years, and he deserves enormous credit for his long and lonely shift as the sole Scottish Labour MP, and for being someone who recognised that the Labour party had to change if it was to earn people’s trust once again. It gives me enormous pleasure and pride to see him in his rightful place as the Secretary of State for Scotland.

That brief interlude aside, we return to Scotland’s real capital city. I am privileged to represent Glasgow’s southside, a place that has had something of a renaissance in recent years, boasting the trendy tenements of Shawlands, the tree-lined avenues of Newlands and the beautiful conservation village of Carmunnock, among others. My constituency contains many of Glasgow’s beautiful parks, of which Linn Park, Queen’s Park and Pollok Country Park are just a few. In the latter, hon. Members will find the Burrell collection, which was awarded the Art Fund’s museum of the year award after its reopening last year.

Like many parts of the city, however, we are not without difficulties. Castlemilk is an area with enormous spirit and the kindest people anyone will ever meet, but it also remains an area with challenges. Even today, the simple act of getting a supermarket in Castlemilk has proven difficult, something I hope to change as the local MP.

What is true of all my constituency is that it is an outward-looking, diverse and welcoming place. The Scots-Asian community in particular have contributed enormously to Glasgow’s character, and I am very proud to represent them here in Parliament. Immigration has made my constituency richer, and it makes our country richer, too. The southside of Glasgow is also a passionately pro-European place. Although Brexit was settled in the previous Parliament, I intend to support the Government’s moves to repair our relationship with Europe.

My first duty is to my constituency and my country—being the Member of Parliament for Glasgow South is the only job that I will do, so long as the people of Glasgow South wish for me to continue—but I also feel a sense of responsibility towards the many millions of people at home and around the world who do not have a voice; the people toiling away in darkness, just as my grandpa did all those years ago. I hope that none of us in this House forgets the millions—indeed, billions—of people around the world who are not as lucky as us, including those facing persecution or war, those without access to clean water or a good education, and those bound by modern slavery. I am one of the lucky few to serve in this place, but I will never forget the people who put me here and the people who do not have a voice. Delivering for them will be how I judge my success.

I call Lisa Smart to make her maiden speech.

It is an absolute honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee). He spoke passionately about his constituency, and his love for his constituents was clear for all to hear. It is also an honour to follow maiden speeches from the hon. Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). Each is, in their own way, an act to follow.

I thank the people of Hazel Grove constituency for placing their trust in me. That trust is a profound responsibility, and I am committed to repaying it through hard work, integrity and service to my community. I acknowledge the work of my predecessor William Wragg, who served in Parliament from 2015 until he stood down at the last election. He stood up to those in power when he felt that it was needed, and he spoke openly about poor mental health in a way that I am sure will have helped to break down stigma. On behalf of all residents of Hazel Grove, I wish him all the best for the future.

I accept that I may be a little biased, but Hazel Grove is quite clearly the finest constituency in the land. It ranges from central Stockport out to the edge of the Peak district, taking in the communities of Bredbury, Bosden Farm, Compstall, Great Moor, Hawk Green, Heaviley, High Lane, Little Moor, Marple, Marple Bridge, Mellor, Mill Brow, Norbury, Offerton, Romiley, Strines, Woodley, and some, but not all, of Hazel Grove itself. Whether the peaceful havens of our green spaces or the proud reminders of our industrial heritage, Hazel Grove has it all. We have the Peak forest, the Macclesfield canals, which have one of the steepest lock flights in the country, and our beautiful rivers: the Goyt, the Mersey and the Tame. It is no wonder so many people want to call our area home. Our rivers would be even more beautiful if the water company were not pumping quite so much sewage into them. We very much look forward to the Government implementing their plans to clean up that scandal.

However, it is the people who really make our community. Starting Point social enterprise in Woodley is tackling digital exclusion by giving some of my more mature constituents the confidence to get online, the Cherry Tree Project in Romiley empowers young people to live their best lives, and NK Theatre Arts works with children and adults of all abilities across the borough, using creativity and the performing arts to transform lives. Local people have many of the answers that we seek on how to fix the problems we face as a country. My job, and the job of this House, is to empower them, not tell them what is good for them.

I am a liberal and a Liberal Democrat. We exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society in which we balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

I joined the Lib Dems and got involved in politics because shouting at the television was not bringing about the changes that we need. My constituents have been very clear with me that their top priority is our local health service. They should not have a hospital that is literally falling down, they should not have to wait months or years for treatment, and they should not have to struggle to care for their loved ones. The phenomenal staff at Stepping Hill hospital should not have to wade through flooded corridors to get to their patients because yet another pipe has burst, as it did last weekend. Stepping Hill hospital must get the repairs it needs, and we need a new, additional hospital in the town centre so that local people can get the health and social care services they deserve. I will not rest until they do.

I could not possibly make my first speech in this House without mentioning the last Liberal Democrat to represent my community, Andrew Stunell. Andrew was the MP for Hazel Grove from 1997 to 2015, and he was that rare kind of politician who gave politics a good name. He was an MP who set the standard to which all who came after him are rightly held—he was interested in doing something, not just being something. He put his constituents first and brought about changes in the law, both as a Minister and as a Back Bencher.

Andrew made things better for the whole country: as a Minister, he delivered the Localism Act 2011, but as a Back Bencher he came top of the private Member’s Bill ballot in 2003, resulting in the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill becoming an Act of Parliament in 2004. More than all that, he was one of the warmest, kindest people I have ever met. He was the kind of person you want on your team: hard-working, honest and kind. He helped me work out what it was to make a difference in public life. The people of Hazel Grove, the whole Lib Dem family and I will miss him and his guidance hugely.

I am the first woman to be elected as the MP for Hazel Grove, and I take that responsibility really seriously. I am especially delighted to be a Member of the largest group of Liberal Democrats ever elected to this House: there are 73 of us, if we include the right honourable Jennie. I went to a comprehensive school, and was the first member of my family to go to university.

Before deciding that shouting at the telly was not bringing about the changes that I wanted to see in the world and that standing for elected office was the way to be part of that change, I worked in a business as a director of client relations—my clients were big pension funds, charities and foundations. I was then the chief exec of a charity, educating women and girls in the developing world. For the past eight years, I have also been lucky enough to represent some of my constituents as an elected councillor for Bredbury Green and Romiley on Stockport council, a role I have loved. I am one of a rather large number of colleagues who come to this House knowing at first hand the value of local government, and the desperate need for it to be funded properly.

I turn to the substance of today’s debate, which is standards and modernisation. The main thrust of what we have heard from the Government and the Leader of the House—that any further roles should benefit an MP’s constituents—is absolutely right. In the short term, we should of course stop MPs from taking on roles as paid parliamentary advisers, strategists or consultants. In the longer term, daylight is often the best disinfectant, so I ask the Leader of the House to consider whether publishing any employment contracts for outside arrangements—with suitable redactions—and the transparency that would bring would allow constituents to judge for themselves whether they were getting value for money from their MP.

As a new MP, I am struck and more than a little bemused by some of the wonderful conventions and habits of this House. Taking it as read that colleagues are honourable is a good thing, and referring to one another as the Members for our constituencies acts as a powerful reminder of who sent us here, but I am also struck by how much modernisation is needed. We on the Lib Dem Benches look forward to supporting the Government when we agree, but I would expect us to urge, persuade, and on occasion push the Government to go further and faster to make us the most effective we can be, because our constituents deserve no less.

With so many newly elected colleagues, we have a cracking opportunity to change this place for the better. It could be so much more efficient and so much more effective. Let us do that with fresh eyes before we are all too institutionalised and think that some of this stuff is normal. However, that is also going to take some courage from the new Government, because making processes and procedures less obscure so that more people understand them and making this place more efficient will mean that MPs have more power and the Government slightly less of it. Governments—especially Governments with new large majorities, I am guessing—will probably grow rather fond of that power quite quickly, so let us get cracking.

Alongside modernising this place, we should of course reform our politics and our democracy more fundamentally. The House of Lords should obviously be elected, 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote, and we must replace the antiquated and deeply unfair first-past-the-post system with a fair, proportionate voting system. I look forward to making the case for these changes during my time here.

This election was the fourth time I have stood to represent the people of Hazel Grove as the Lib Dem candidate, and it probably takes a certain sort of stubbornness, resilience and determination to do that. It most certainly took the support of my family, and especially of my partner, Ed. I am so grateful to him. Our mischievous rescue dog Bonnie has not quite made up her mind yet about what she thinks about me working away from home rather more, but I hope to be able to convince her that winning is better than losing, as it undoubtedly is. Winning enables us to get stuff done, and there is a lot to do.

It is the honour of my life to be elected to represent my phenomenal community, the people of Hazel Grove constituency. They will be at the heart of everything I do here, and I hope I do them proud.

I call Hamish Falconer to make his maiden speech.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the many maiden speeches of new Members I have heard today, including the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for her fine speech. Hon. Members have spoken with affection and commitment about their home constituencies. Each of them rightly places their own area above all others, and that is understandable, but I stand before you as the Member for the oldest continuous constituency to send a Member to this House. For almost 1,000 years, men and women have stood, as I stand today, proud to proclaim themselves the Member for Lincoln.

I walk in the footsteps of a series of strong Labour women. Lincoln’s first female Member of Parliament was a titan of our movement, Margaret Beckett. Grafton House, Lincoln’s Labour club, was founded and sustained by the much-missed Leo. Margaret was succeeded by two other formidable Labour women, Gillian Merron and Karen Lee, both of whom continue to serve our movement in local and national Government. I am honoured to succeed them.

I would like to pay tribute, too, to my immediate predecessor, Karl MᶜCartney, who also loved the city. He dedicated himself particularly to improving local transport provision. He pressed forward with relief roads for the city, and I now take up that cause too. Lincoln is a beautiful, historic, young and dynamic city, but we are far from other major urban centres and, indeed, from any of my hon. Friends on these Benches. We need a public transport network that reflects that relative geographical isolation, and I hope to work with colleagues across the House to make sure that Lincoln and Lincolnshire get the transport network they need. Right hon. and hon. Members may not yet be sick of hearing me talk about the urgent necessity to upgrade the Lincoln to Newark line, one of the slowest in the country, but I assure them that they will be.

All of us elected to serve our communities will of course be seeking the support that they deserve, as I also intend to in relation to the cost of living, healthcare and housing, but I want to pause to pay tribute to the service my city has done for this country. That service snakes back even further than my predecessors. Over 1,000 years ago, in 1217, England seemed almost lost. French forces loyal to Prince Louis had taken most of England, and even the majority of Lincoln herself. It was only our castle, led by a woman in her mid-sixties, Nicola de la Haye, the constable of Lincoln castle, who survived months of bitter siege warfare, that finally repelled the invaders at the battle of Lincoln, securing the city and saving England.

Hundreds of years later, Lincoln and her workers again sprang to the defence of this country. In the chaos of the first world war, facing mechanised industrial-scale warfare of the most horrifying kind, Lincoln invented the tank. We produced one in 14 of all Royal Air Force planes at Ruston, and the working people of Lincoln delivered to this country the equipment and people needed to prevail against the odds. On these Benches, and in this movement, we never forget that.

Lincoln’s connection with the RAF has never since dimmed, and less than a decade later young men, including my grandfather, trained to fly at the RAF stations surrounding our city. To this day we are proud to continue to host RAF Waddington, one of the most important RAF bases. At this moment RAF Waddington and its brave men and women protect this country and this House, as does Sobraon barracks in uphill Lincoln. I am proud of their service, and I will be a champion for them and their families for as long as I am in this place.

As for so many of my constituents, public service took me far from home, and I was surprised and honoured to be asked to return to the Foreign Office shortly after my election to this place. I know that my constituents expect me to do my duty there, as they do at Waddington and across the world. It is an honour to join the Government, but before I speak from the Front Bench on Government business, I wish to send a message to my constituents: I am first and foremost the Member for Lincoln—for the city and Bracebridge, Waddington and Skellingthorpe; for the schools and two universities; for the barracks and the airbase; for the hospital, cathedral and castle; for our copy of Magna Carta; for the independent shops of the bail; for Sincil Bank and the parks of Boultham and Hartsholme; and for the Gillies, the Ermine, Birchwood and Steep Hill. This is the honour of my life, and our city on a hill will be my first and last priority for as long as you send me here.

I now call Patrick Spencer to make his maiden speech.

It is an honour to rise to make my first formal contribution as a Member of this House, and I start by congratulating you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on taking your seat in the Chair.

I also start with a slight admission of honesty. Since arriving here, I have been nervous and anxious about making my maiden speech—we might even say that I delayed making my maiden speech for fear that my new colleagues were superb orators who would go on to make excellent speeches. I am happy to admit that that fear came to pass: there have been some superb speeches over the past couple of days. Even today, I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) and for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), and the hon. Members for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), and of course my neighbour, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), whose great speech did justice to that town. I thank him for his kind words. He is no longer here, so I will stop the niceties there.

I am in the fortunate position of having been sent to this place to represent a constituency and a people that have played a huge role in my life. My grandfather grew up in east London before moving to Essex to raise a family. It was in the 1980s, after retirement and with my grandmother Mary, that he made that all-too-familiar trip up the A12 to settle just 20 minutes outside Ipswich. My earliest and happiest childhood memories were spent falling in love with a country and a countryside that I still call home today, and a county and a people I am now humbled to represent in this place.

Shock horror, Madam Deputy Speaker: I think Central Suffolk and North Ipswich is blessed with some of the most beautiful countryside in England, but it is the history of the area that makes it unique. The Anglo-Saxon King Raedwald was one of the richest and most powerful of his era. Consequently, Suffolk has become a treasure trove for archaeologists for nearly a century. My neighbour the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) can boast of Sutton Hoo, but on my far-eastern border, just last year a 1,400-year-old pre-Christian temple was discovered. Experts can trace back human activity in the area almost 6,000 years. I am fortunate to have the beautiful market town of Framlingham in my patch. It is home to Framlingham castle, a former seat of the famous Howard family, and St Michael’s church, which contains the tombs of Tudor royalty and nobility, and which I love to take my two children to see. I also have Helmingham hall in my constituency, which has unbelievably hosted both Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Elizabeth II.

It is unsurprising, given our ancient, lush and beautiful landscape, that we have a rich history of producing great artists who are inspired by those surroundings. Thomas Gainsborough, John Constable, Benjamin Britten and even Brian Eno and Ed Sheeran, to name a few, are all products of our wonderful county in some way or another. I am afraid to say that this child of Suffolk was not blessed with the same artistic talent.

The other great contribution that I have always felt that Suffolk makes to our country is in food and drink. I have been told by my wife that it is certainly a domain in which I have more expertise and experience. Central Suffolk and North Ipswich is home to Aspall cider, manufactured for almost 300 years from apple trees in the grounds of Aspall hall. It is now one of the most recognisable brands in the global drinks market, exporting products to customers around the world. It is a great example of global success by a home-grown British business. We are great exporters of not only cider but sausages, spuds, chocolate and condiments. It is not uncommon to find Suffolk produce in shops across the country. It is for that reason that I have in the past, and will now in this place, support initiatives like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) that give consumers in this country the opportunity to buy produce from producers in this country.

The Suffolk farming and agricultural community are such an important part of our local society, and they are also emblematic of our local culture and identity, with their no-nonsense attitude to hard work, love for family and community, complete and utter ambivalence to the weather, and deep affection for our natural environment. I am sure that all Members have their bias, but I am of the firm belief that the people of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are the finest our country has to offer.

While I hope to be a voice primarily for the people of Suffolk and Ipswich, I hope to use my time in this place to speak up for another cause. In a previous life, before entering this place, I worked under my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) at the Centre for Social Justice, and then as an adviser in the Department for Education. In that time, I realised that the Conservative party and conservativism have a proud story to tell on the critical issue of helping those who need help—on offering the most vulnerable in our society not just a handout but a leg up, and on standing up for what is just and fair in society. More than anything, they are about giving people the opportunity to fulfil their potential.

I count the wards of Whitton, Whitehouse and Castle Hill as part of my patch. Whitton and Whitehouse are two of the most deprived wards in our country. Castle Hill is probably one of the most unequal. By any measure, Ipswich is, like its football team, a huge success story, but large parts of it, including many families living in Whitehouse, Whitton and Castle Hill, have been left behind. The story is all too familiar: the failure to adapt in a post-industrial economy; generations of low-wage work, if not worklessness; the proliferation of crime; and high levels of immigration that have caused a degree of social polarisation. For however long the people of Central Suffolk and North Ipswich want me to represent them, I will fight in this place to empower those people who feel left behind, those who want to get on in life, and those who want to, and can, reach their potential. At a time when faith and trust in politics is at an all-time low among those who feel locked out of our economy and our society, there is no more pressing cause than ensuring that Britain works for everyone.

Today, we are debating the merits of allowing MPs to have a second job. Time and again on the doorstep during the election, and across dining tables for many years, I have heard from people—rich and poor, young and old, left and right—that they have lost faith in politicians doing the right thing. Believe it or not, the NHS, immigration, jobs, incomes and access to homes were all hugely important to the voters at this general election, but the most important thing to the people across my constituency—from Whitehouse to Whitton, Kesgrave to Claydon and Ringshall to Rendham—whether they voted for me or not, was restoring a sense of moral probity and public spiritedness to our political system. As we embark on this debate and others in this place, let us keep that in mind.

Before I finish, I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr Dan Poulter. He was as dedicated a servant to the people of Suffolk and Ipswich as ever there was, both as an MP and in his second job as a consultant doctor. He used his invaluable NHS experience when he was a junior Minister in the Department of Health, and when he was on the draft Bill Committee reviewing the Mental Health Act 1983 for the first time in 40 years. We felt the benefits of his healthcare expertise in Suffolk when he managed to save Hertismere hospital, which was previously in my constituency and is now in neighbouring Waveney Valley, and when he lobbied the Government for a new accident and emergency wing for Ipswich general hospital.

As many people know, Dr Dan arrived in this House as a Member of my party and left as a Member of another, but I do not feel any ill will, for another political hero of mine, Winston Churchill, performed a similar journey over 120 years ago. I do not mind saying it here, Madam Deputy Speaker: I, too, hope one day to cross the Floor. Before I give my Whips a heart attack, I should add: not to swap political allegiances, but as part of a Conservative party elected back into government, taking our place on the Government Benches. That was a Whip-issued line.

In the meantime, though, I would like to thank my wife and my two little boys, Leo and Jasper, who I am sure are watching on BBC Parliament right now. I also thank the Doorkeepers and the Clerks. I also want to thank my mother, who has been a real trouper to sit through a nearly 3.5-hour debate. She looks brighter now than she did when I put her in a polling station as a teller. As I was saying, I look forward to working with Members from across the House in the pursuit of delivering for the people of this great nation.

I intend to start the Front-Bench wind-ups at 4.40 pm, but I call Stella Creasy.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the very short time available to me, let me say, after so many glorious maiden speeches, that I hope that this place can rise to the occasion, in terms of what we do on this Modernisation Committee. The truth is that we do not have any rights as MPs, yet we come here to defend the rights of our constituents. That will matter, because this should be a modern workplace, safe not just for us, but for our staff, and accessible not just for us, but for anybody who comes to see us; and it should not be a place that leads us to divorce, drink, and all the other things that new Members of Parliament may have been warned about.

In one minute, let me tell the House what I think we could do through the Committee to redress the situation and give us some rights. If hon. Members employ young women here, somebody will take them out for a drink to warn them about this place and the people that they should be aware of, but that is not good enough. We must enforce the findings of the Paul Kernaghan review, and we must ensure that where people face bullying and sexual harassment, there is no unfairness, no favour and no political interference, because, sadly, no political party can hold its head up on that score.

We must learn from other jurisdictions around the world, including New Zealand, Australia and Ireland, about making this place family-friendly. That is not just about having a workplace crèche, but about holiday clubs, and knowing what time we will leave here and get home. No one in this place will enjoy doing bedtime via FaceTime, but unless we reform this place to make it family-friendly, that is the future ahead of all hon. Members and their families.

Let me turn to the gender-sensitive Parliament review that we signed up to in the Kigali accord. We must make that happen, not just for the women in this place, but for all the women and men to come. There are so many things that we can do through this Modernisation Committee, which is a welcome development, but the test will be whether we do them. I urge all hon. Members, new and old, to make sure that happens.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Let me say how impressed I am by all the maiden speeches that we have heard this afternoon, in particular that of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer), who talked about the importance of restoring moral probity—a relevant subject for today’s debate. It is good to hear that he heard that subject raised on many doorsteps during the election campaign; so did I. It was good that he referred to his predecessor, Dan Poulter, who was an example to many people in this place. He used his experience in another job—I will not say a second job—to inform debate and make sure that things said in this House were based on experience and knowledge that can only be found through the personal experience of professionals like him.

As Members of Parliament, we are fortunate to have one of the most satisfying jobs in the world. There should be no such thing as a safe seat, some kind of sinecure; the job of MP ought to be earned through hard work and dedication. The public put their trust in each of us to be their champion and their voice. The Liberal Democrats welcome this debate on the code of conduct, and in particular the fact that it will examine second jobs. The primary focus of all Members must be on serving those people who elected us and put us here. In recent years we have seen a series of scandals that have weakened people’s trust in politics and politicians, and I welcome the fact that the Modernisation Committee will seek to restore some of that trust.

Aside from the scandals of the sorts referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), there are a tiny number of MPs who are really quite absent. I want to illustrate the problem with one of the more egregious examples—the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who is not in his place, but whom I notified that I planned to refer to him. He is a former Attorney General and a very eminent barrister with a high-profile career outside this place. It was revealed that, in 2021, he had earned more than £1 million in a single year, including by representing tax havens in the Caribbean. However, he was absent from parliamentary votes because of this outside work, and in one case even voted by proxy from 4,000 miles away.

Between 2023 and 2024, the right hon. and learned Member declared more than £836,000 of external earnings for 500 hours of work—the equivalent of 66 full days’ work—while having contributed to just four debates in the whole of 2023. In the whole of the last Parliament, he contributed to just 20 debates here in the Commons. Looking at Hansard, that included a contribution to just one debate in 2020 and one debate in 2021, and there is no record of him having contributed to a debate in 18 months. That is in stark contrast to what we heard about Dr Dan Poulter. It is not a party political point. Dan Poulter contributed to 124 debates in the last Parliament and made some significant contributions with his experience as a mental health doctor. The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) is a Labour MP and a doctor who puts in shifts in accident and emergency, not just to keep up her medical qualification but because that enlightens the House and informs the legislation that we debate here.

No, I am taking issue with that very, very small number of MPs who give the rest of us a bad name by earning huge sums of money for the hours of work they put in outside of this place in what is, frankly, their first job, not their second. They and we must remember that our principal employer is the voting public in those areas that we represent. Being elected as an MP is a massive privilege. It is a role that we should strive to do our very utmost to fulfil. We must work night and day to repay the trust that is put in us by voters. The Modernisation Committee should ensure that we are focused first and foremost on our jobs here.

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Congratulations on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulated one of your colleagues at the beginning, so let me add my congratulations to you on your election to the Chair.

Let me start by saying a huge congratulations and well done to the Members on both sides making some very impressive maiden speeches today. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott)—I am struggling to see him in the Chamber—listed all the premier league grounds he intends to visit now that his team are in the premier league. He did not mention Selhurst Park, the home of Crystal Palace in the borough I represent in Parliament—an accidental omission, I am sure.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made an excellent maiden speech. I wish him good luck with the upcoming house move. He very wisely observed that he does not plan to place any political bets anytime soon. The hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) gave an excellent speech. He clearly brings to the House experience as a former chair of the Local Government Association. There is certainly no need for him to experience any imposter syndrome.

We heard from the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), who spoke extremely eloquently about his constituency and the Edinburgh festival. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) about his support for the modernisation of Parliament and his commitment to public service here. We heard from the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), who made an excellent and very eloquent speech. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) will clearly bring to bear her experience as a former deputy headteacher. The hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) has possibly one of the narrowest majorities in Parliament, which he will no doubt be valiantly defending. We also heard from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) paid fulsome tribute to the work of her predecessor, Andrew Stunell. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer) has already assumed ministerial office. In fact, I can see his red ministerial folder on his knees— a meteoric ascent. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) is apparently going to be the new Ed Sheeran of Parliament—that is what I took from his speech, anyway—and his mum is with us today. I did speak to a Labour Member whose mum was also here during her maiden speech a few days ago. Apparently, her mum fell asleep during the preceding speeches. You can take that how you will. [Laughter.]

Having congratulated new Members on their really brilliant maiden speeches, let me turn back to the substance before us. My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) spoke eloquently about the importance of ensuring that we take on board the long expertise of the existing House Committees, in particular the Standards Committee, which the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) also referred to at the beginning from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. The Standards Committee is elected by the House, not appointed by Whips, as the new Committee will be, and has seven lay members who bring in external experience, including, as I said earlier, a retired chief constable and others who bring genuine independence and expertise. It is vital that we continue to draw on the independence and experience of the Standards Committee.

These are complicated issues. We heard from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), winding up for the Liberal Democrats just a moment ago, how experience of practising medicine can help to enrich debates and inform the proceedings of the House, as Dan Poulter did when he was both a Member of Parliament and a practising doctor. Such considerations need to be carefully considered.

I am very much hoping—I might even go so far as to say “expecting”—that the Leader of the House will give the House some assurances in her winding-up speech. In particular, I seek assurances that the Procedure Committee, the Committee on Standards, the Committee of Privileges and the Administration Committee will always be invited to report to the Modernisation Committee on matters that it is due to consider; that the Speaker will always be consulted; that the work of the Modernisation Committee will not cut across what the House of Commons Commission does; and that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will be invited to make submissions and give evidence where appropriate or necessary. If the Leader of the House can give strong enough such assurances about how the Committee will function, as well as an assurance that she will chair it on the basis of cross-party consensus, I am prepared not to move my amendments. I therefore wait with trembling and eager anticipation to hear what she says.

I am sure I speak for us all when I say that it is critical that we maintain standards at the very highest level here, to ensure that the public—our constituents—can have confidence in the work we do.

I call the Leader of the House.

May I congratulate you on your election, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on having already made good use of the parliamentary hairdressers? I hope that you will maintain that tradition.

I thank so many Members of this House for taking part in this debate. We have heard some excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Telford (Shaun Davies), for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis), for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), for Lincoln (Hamish Falconer), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) and for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and the hon. Members for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) all made excellent contributions. There is always a competition about who represents the very best constituency, but of course we all know that it is actually me.

Trust and dedication to constituencies, constituents and public service have been a common theme today. Substantive points have also been raised about the modernisation agenda, for which I am really grateful. The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), raised several issues. I welcome his engagement, which I have sought over recent days; I discussed our proposals with him well in advance of tabling them.

The size of the Modernisation Committee, which is the subject of Opposition amendment (c), has been part of the conversation about representation across the House. The current proposal is to have 14 members; under the current algorithm, which is based on the make-up of the House, that will give nine places to the Government, three to the official Opposition and two to the third party. Expanding the Committee to 18 members would give 12 places to the Government party and three to the third party, but the official Opposition would still have three. I looked at all the numbers and I felt that having 14 members would give the fairest distribution among Government and Opposition parties. Going bigger still would not bring the smaller parties into the mix, which is why I have made a very firm commitment to have ongoing dialogue and meaningful engagement with them. If the numbers included Chairs of other Committees, the shadow Leader of the House might actually lose his place on the Committee, because the other Committee Chairs would take up the official Opposition places, so I ask him to think about the numbering.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the Modernisation Committee’s relationship to other Committees. It is essential to be clear about this. I have been very clear that it will be a strategic, overarching Committee. It will not seek to duplicate any of the work of other Committees, which would be a waste of everybody’s time. Instead, it will work closely with those Committees, commission their work, seek their views, ask for their reports and their input and carefully consider their recommendations on all matters.

I see this as a sort of clearing house, a “task and finish” group that can more quickly bring recommendations from some of those Committees to the Floor of the House and take a strategic overview of how the different issues interrelate. The Standards Committee itself recommended that in its most recent report, in which it described the siloed and disjointed context in which we operate.

The right hon. Lady’s comments are extremely welcome, but, for absolute clarity, can she confirm that when the new Modernisation Committee intends to consider a matter, it will first invite the relevant other Committee of the House to prepare a report and come back to the Modernisation Committee with it?

On the whole, yes; that is the intention and the hope. Some of those Committees do not yet have Chairs, but that is certainly the modus operandi for which we are hoping. We do not expect to be doing that work ourselves, or duplicating it.

The Standards Committee, which was raised earlier, has a completely distinct and different role because of the relationship with the lay members and with the Standards Commissioner. As I have said to the Leader of the House privately—I am sorry; I mean the shadow Leader of the House. [Laughter.] I am still getting used to this gig. As I have said to the shadow Leader, I sought the advice of the Standards Commissioner when considering how we would tighten the rules on paid advocacy, and I have followed his advice to the letter, because I think this is critical. The Standards Commissioner would not want to sit on the Committee because it would conflict with his role, but I see his role as being central to the drawing up of any further advice, because he has to police it—that is his job. I hope that satisfies the shadow Leader of the House.

The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) and I have worked closely together, and I greatly value her input on these issues. I think that we largely agree on most of them. We do need to take forward the recommendations on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme review, and that would be a first task for the Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) made an erudite speech, as usual, about trust and cleaning up politics, and I thank him for his contribution. That is very much what we are seeking to do. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) has done invaluable work on this matter in the past in his role as a member of the Standards Committee. As I have said, I am very conscious of the work that the lay members do and the need for that to play a separate role in this context, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the landscape review pointed clearly to the need for a more strategic, joined-up approach to some of these issues. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as a newbie, presented some welcome ideas. She reflects the enthusiasm of many other newbies and, I think, the frustration of many of them as well.

I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) from outside the Chamber. I really do value her contribution to this debate, and I look forward to working with her. I would love to have her on the Committee, but I am hopeful that we can find a way for that ongoing relationship to be meaningful and regular, and that she will be able to contribute some of the ideas that she mentioned today in a more formal manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), in a very short space of time, gave some very good advice about the implications for safety and human resources on the estate, and she was right to do so. We did not hear many comments on second jobs, but I think we all agree that we need to take action in that regard, and I am glad to see the extent of the cross-party support for such action.

I hope we will not divide the House on these issues, because I think it important for us to stand together today. We have seen plenty of enthusiasm and support, and I hope that Members will now support the motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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”.

We now come to motion 5, relating to a Modernisation Committee. I remind the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e), as listed on the Order Paper. If amendment (b) is defeated, amendments (c) and (d) automatically fall, and I will not call anyone to move them. I call the Minister to move the motion formally.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

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.—(Lucy Powell.)

Amendment (b) has been selected. I call Chris Philp.

On the basis of the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I will not move the amendment.

As amendment (b) has not been moved, I will not call amendments (c) and (d), but I will call amendment (e).

On the basis of the Leader of the House’s assurances, I will not move the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.