Procedure Committee
Oral evidence: Status of independent Members of Parliament, HC 534
Wednesday 26 February 2025
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 26 February 2025.
Members present: Cat Smith (Chair); James Asser; David Baines; Sir Christopher Chope; Mr Lee Dillon; Graeme Downie; Mary Kelly Foy; Tracy Gilbert; Gurinder Singh Josan; Michael Wheeler.
Questions 1 - 48
Witnesses
I: Shockat Adam MP and Iqbal Mohamed MP.
II: Rt Hon John McDonnell MP and Ian Byrne MP.
Witnesses: Shockat Adam MP and Iqbal Mohamed MP.
Q1 Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the first session of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into independent Members of Parliament. A record six independent MPs were elected to the House in the 2024 general election and our inquiry is examining the procedures and practices of the House of Commons and how they are working for independent Members.
Today, my fellow Committee members and I are delighted to be joined by Shockat Adam MP and Iqbal Mohamed MP, who were elected as independent MPs last July. I am grateful for your time and offering us the opportunity to ask about your experiences working in the House of Commons as independent MPs. Good afternoon to you both. Before we start this afternoon’s session, I would be grateful if you could introduce yourselves for the record, perhaps with Iqbal first.
Iqbal Mohamed: Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Iqbal Mohamed, the absolutely proud independent Member of Parliament for Dewsbury and Batley in West Yorkshire.
Shockat Adam: Thank you. I am Shockat Adam, the independent MP for Leicester South.
Q2 Chair: Welcome, both of you. I will start with the first question, which is to both of you, and I don’t mind which one of you answers first. I am sure you can agree among yourselves. On your experiences, following your election as independent MPs, do you feel that you have had adequate support in getting to understand the procedures of the House of Commons and your role here in Parliament?
Iqbal Mohamed: For somebody who has never run for office and only ever visited Parliament once in my life, it was a very new experience. I did find the current training programme was positive and helpful. Going through some of the training with all the new MPs was really positive. I love meeting people, so to mix with the new MPs across the country was exciting.
However, I think that the training was too high level for me. It lacked depth and the challenges I faced were learning basic things about procedures into week six, seven, eight, nine—even now sometimes I find out new things. A couple of examples were the actual end-to-end legislative process for proposing Bills and then going through first, second, third reading, the Lords. Even things like a private Member’s Bill. Although I added my name to a ballot and I picked a number, I did not really know what that was about and what it would lead to. I think it needed a bit more depth.
Finally on this—and I am sure Shockat will fill in the other gaps—is training around tools. I am an IT consultant and there is the training around the tools, Members Hub, ParliNet, IPSA, and the way to submit oral and written questions and so on. I think you are meant to go and find out yourself, and without a party machine guiding, saying, “Right, guys, here is an induction list. Go and watch this video. Do this training”, it was quite hard to navigate around and even know there was a tool to help you do that. That is where I will leave it.
Shockat Adam: I concur with my colleague. I think the most common question I get asked is, “Is it difficult being an independent?” My answer is, “It is, but I don’t know any different.” Is it any more difficult than being a new parliamentarian from a particular political party?
What I found very useful is that in the beginning in our induction courses we were with everybody. That was very helpful because there were a lot of questions in my mind that I possibly felt as an independent might be a bit silly to ask, but one of my colleagues from an established party raised their hand and asked that question for me. It gave me the feeling that we were all on an equal footing and there was no advantage given to anybody else above us, so that was very useful.
Definitely following on from what Iqbal said, I think no matter how much training or books or tutorials I was given, I still would not have understood the process as well as I have done by living through it, as somebody who does not come from a political party background. Experience has taught me much better than a three manual booklet would have done and then come back, but what I would have found very useful is this: it is extremely overwhelming, and I am sure that is the same for all my colleagues, but then they seem to go away and have some kind of machinery or mechanism or a team that can add on value and learning after the initial induction phase, which I and my colleagues did not get.
I would have found it very useful, anywhere between six to 12 weeks in, to have an update or, “Do you need to come in and we can give you a bit more assistance? Do you have any questions about these ten-minute rule Bills and so on and protocol and going through the right door and nodding at the right time? Are we doing all of that correctly?” To have that between six to 12 weeks after the initial induction would have been very useful.
Q3 Chair: Just for clarity, how long was that initial induction? Forgive me: I was not part of your intake, so I don’t know.
Shockat Adam: One day or was it two days?
Iqbal Mohamed: Yes, it was spread over—there were about four separate sessions across two days in that first week.
If I may add one specific point to Shockat’s points, it is a simple thing. You come in and your constituents are waiting for you to deliver your maiden speech. On the rules around the maiden speech and what you can do before you have given it and what you can do after you have given it, there was no real, “Here is a slip. Don’t get up and speak unless it is your maiden speech, but you can do this, this and this, interventions, questions”. I am sure it is in that big bible of a book, but there are certain top 10 tips that should be given on day one, right at the beginning, so that you at least do not trip up or end up forgoing your opportunity to do a maiden speech because you spoke in a Westminster Hall debate. There were a couple of debates when somebody said, “By the way, if you are going to speak that will be your maiden”, so I had to pull back. I was glad somebody was there to guide me, and I had a lot of pressure on it then, but thankfully people in my constituency were happy with what I ended up saying in my maiden speech.
Chair: I will hand over to my colleague Graeme who I think has another question for you.
Q4 Graeme Downie: Thank you both for joining us today. I am particularly interested in fairness and us all being on an equal level. We have some information that shows that contributions in the Chamber between independent and other MPs are roughly the same. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker have discretion to call whoever they choose, but do you feel as independent MPs that you get enough opportunity to contribute to different debates, statements, questions and everything else?
Shockat Adam: I feel that we do overall. I have never felt that I have been ignored. The feeling that I get—and this is a judgment I am making on my experience, because I spend quite a lot of time in the Chamber—is that I am called relatively late on in a debate. Maybe everybody feels that, but it is sometimes two, three, four hours later and I don’t know if I can go out to the toilet and lose my place. Because it is the first time ever that we have had so many independents, I am not sure whether the Speaker and the Clerks know where we should be going. I don’t know whether they know at which point they should be calling us in.
I have spoken so many times, and I cannot say that I have not been picked, because I have been picked. Obviously, there are questions around Prime Minister’s question time and so on, but there I think we have been called only twice as independents, and I think once we were picked in the seven or eight months we have been there. Is that because we are independents, and we are a formal party? We are not sure.
Q5 Graeme Downie: Iqbal, do you have anything to add to that?
Iqbal Mohamed: I concur with what Shockat said. I am in there quite a lot when I think I need to speak and represent my constituents. I have not felt ignored or not called. Yesterday, because the time was very tight and there were lots of people bobbing, I did not get a chance. However, while I do not take that as anything about me, but again we are at the end.
The protocols around being able to leave partway, when you are on the list to speak, and then be able to come back could have been clarified at the beginning in our inductions. People will pop out for water, a toilet break or prayers and so on, but we were told, “Just let the Speaker know that you will be gone for so long”. We have been following that protocol, and it has worked really well. The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have treated me—and, I believe, my colleagues—really well and they are always checking if everything is okay, but it is just the protocols.
One thing that may not be procedural, which I think will be resolved when the Chamber is rebuilt or renovated, is when you walk in front of people on a Bench there is a very big risk of falling over on to the next Bench. I did not realise that there was so little space. There should be a handrail or something.
Chair: That is an interesting point, Iqbal, but it probably goes a little bit beyond procedures. That is modernisation, I suspect.
Q6 David Baines: Thank you both for your time and for coming. I really appreciate it and a lot of what you have said chimed with me, if that is any comfort. It is not just you—as a new Member I share your experiences in some sense.
We want all Members to be treated with fairness and equally regardless of party or non-party affiliation. I want to ask about a couple of things that are available to all Members. I don’t know whether you have applied for adjournment debates and Westminster Hall debates. Personally, as a new Member, I have not. If you have, what has your experience been of applying for those? Do you feel that you have been treated well, and you have had opportunities to do that?
Shockat Adam: I have applied for a Westminster Hall debate—I think possibly two, but definitely one. I have not been selected, but again I don’t know what the ratio is for other people. I have not applied for an adjournment debate. At the moment I have not been selected for a Westminster Hall debate, but I have not seen a pattern for me to feel a victim.
Q7 David Baines: Do you feel you had support to make the application, help with that?
Shockat Adam: Again, we could definitely have done with a little bit more assistance on that.
Iqbal Mohamed: I have not applied. I have not learnt the process yet. I mentioned earlier about the inductions to the key elements of an MP’s role and the processes that we can participate in to apply for debates and speaking opportunities or to raise issues. I will learn it and when I am ready, I will submit. One of our colleagues got a Westminster Hall debate quite early on, but I think he is submitting his evidence in writing. I do not see any issues in the sense of being treated differently. I do not have any experience; I have not applied, and I trust the relevant officers to deal with it in a fair manner.
Q8 David Baines: All Members can table oral and written parliamentary questions as well. How do you feel that experience has been? Have you needed support for doing that or have you been able to access that? What sort of answers have you been getting, and have you felt supported in your ability to scrutinise the Government on what is going on?
Shockat Adam: That is one area where I feel that I am not asking the right questions because they keep being returned to me from the Table Office: “How is it that you want this question to be articulated?” We have submitted multiple written questions, and we get that response back the majority of the time. As for putting my name down on the list to stand in questions, I would say we have been 70% not selected to about 30% selected.
Chair: You are having a better success rate than I am.
Iqbal Mohamed: I have relied mostly on being in the Chamber and bobbing, and I have been quite successful in getting called to be able to put a relevant question. I get questions and information from constituents in real time on an evening the day before or on a morning and, coincidentally, they know which Minister will be at the Dispatch Box ahead of me following up and remembering. I have then turned those into very constituency-specific questions, and I have been able to pose those to different Ministers.
I have not really leveraged the portal for submitting questions, but, again I sort of stumbled on the portal. Again, as part of the induction, to be shown it for five minutes in a quick navigation. I was practising last week, so I will be starting to use that.
Q9 Mr Lee Dillon: On the Westminster Hall debates, I don’t need to know the detail of it, but did you get any feedback as to why you were not selected?
Shockat Adam: No.
Q10 Mr Lee Dillon: As a supplementary to that, a Westminster Hall debate relies on being able to show cross-party support for a debate. Do you find as an independent Member if you go to other parties there is not a willingness to sign up because you are an independent rather than from a group?
Shockat Adam: When I submitted initially, I probably did not have as many parliamentary colleagues that I knew across the parties and the Chamber. I think that has changed now. I have not cognisantly felt that reticence on these issues at all up to this stage.
Q11 Mary Kelly Foy: Welcome to both of you. As you know, the membership of Select Committees and other House Committees, such as the Bill Committees and the designated legislation Committees, reflect the composition of the House. Do you feel that independent MPs have their views taken into account in these proceedings? To what extent do you feel personally that you have been able to contribute to these aspects of parliamentary business?
Iqbal Mohamed: We do not get a place on any Select Committees. It is not even an option. We cannot lobby for it; we cannot apply for it; we cannot express interest in it. We have quite a wide breadth of experience across the alliance. I have my specialist knowledge, and I would absolutely want to contribute the maximum I can as an MP in this role to the processes here, to lawmaking and to holding the Government to account.
That was one of the reasons we felt might give us an opportunity for forming the alliance. There are many things that are common and that we believe in jointly and the quick realisation that we can work together to better represent our constituents led us to the alliance, but that did not open up any opportunities for a seat on a Select Committee.
I may have received an email about being invited to a Bill Committee and I did not know what it was, and I did not know the protocol for accepting or declining or finding out and I ended up maybe not participating in error. I don’t know whether that was an invitation, and I was not able to confirm that before this hearing.
I feel very strongly that this is a unique opportunity given to me to represent my constituents, but also to be a voice in Parliament and to try to hold the Government to account. I am not intimidated. I think the place is the place and you get used to it, but when other MPs may have opportunities that are not available to us, I don’t know what impact that has on our ability to fully represent. We definitely would be willing and interested in participating as widely as possible.
Shockat Adam: I am part of multiple APPGs, which I find very useful, and that creates cross-party alliances as well, but for Select Committees it feels we are not able to contribute the expertise that we bring. We are still as elected as any other individual from any political party. We hold the same mandate, so I feel that is one area that we miss out on, and my constituents miss out on from the expertise that we hold in certain areas, like everybody in this place does.
Q12 Mary Kelly Foy: For instance, if it was a Bill Committee, the Bill Committee is chosen but you can also show interest and say, “Because of my expertise, I would like to sit on a Bill Committee”. Have either of you tried that?
Shockat Adam: I have tried in one and I was not accepted.
Iqbal Mohamed: I spoke on the Data (Use and Access) Bill before recess, where the Minister proposed or encouraged people—not just me, but other speakers who had suggestions for improvements—to put their names forward to participate in the Bill Committee. Until that point—maybe that is on me—I was not aware that I could volunteer or express an interest. I think it might help knowing at the beginning where we can express an interest and whether it is immediate or in a few months’ time, knowing that people know that we are available and would like to help and contribute so that we can get our names in, and our interests shared.
Mary Kelly Foy: If you want to go on the delegated legislation Committees, I am sure there would be lots of people who would bite your hand off. There are loads of them. You can have a few of mine, if you like.
Q13 Gurinder Singh Josan: You have expressed your dissatisfaction of not being able to participate in Select Committees. To understand how important that is to you, were you aware when you stood for election as an independent that you would not be able to take part in Select Committees, for example, if you were elected as an independent?
Shockat Adam: I was aware.
Iqbal Mohamed: I was not aware.
Q14 Gurinder Singh Josan: That is interesting because my follow-up question was: if you were aware—which you were—would you still have stood as an independent knowing that?
Shockat Adam: I knew that, but I still stood.
Q15 Gurinder Singh Josan: In that sense, how important is it to you, if you knew that you were not going to be able to participate in that, but you still put forward for the role?
Shockat Adam: It is still very important, because Select Committees are one aspect of a huge fraternity here. Therefore, it was so many other things you see before a Select Committee when you wish to be elected. I am sure somebody does get elected primarily just to be on a Select Committee, but there are a lot of other representations I can get.
Iqbal Mohamed: I would definitely have stood, knowing what I know now. Nothing changes that fact.
Q16 Graeme Downie: There is a convention in the House that the third largest party has a responsibility to protect the rights of smaller parties and independents. Were you made aware of that during some of the induction? Slightly related to that, there have been some instances in the past where independents have sat on Select Committees because of particular specialities, but that has required another party essentially to give up one of their seats. Were you aware of that or have been made aware of that during the process of the inductions?
Shockat Adam: I was not aware of that.
Iqbal Mohamed: I was not aware of either of those things.
Q17 Mr Lee Dillon: Have you ever provided evidence to a Select Committee as any Member could do?
Chair: They are doing that now!
Mr Lee Dillon: They are witnesses. Did you know that, if another Select Committee is doing an inquiry and a call for consultation or evidence, as an individual Member you could submit evidence to that Committee?
Shockat Adam: No.
Iqbal Mohamed: There are two parts. One is to know that you can put yourself forward to provide evidence to an inquiry, but the other part is: what is the process for suggesting areas of inquiry to a Select Committee? There is an EDM form, there is a questions form, but I did not find anything that says, “Do you have something that you want a Select Committee to look into?”.
Knowing that as well, especially in an area of specialism—I am from a pharmaceutical and food background, engineering and so on—there are certain things that I campaigned on, and I want to at least be aware of what is going on, which Select Committees look after or oversee this, what inquiries are happening and then put myself forward to provide evidence or suggest areas of inquiry for consideration.
Q18 Michael Wheeler: I think part of why we are here is that, in September last year, Jeremy Corbyn MP wrote to the Speaker saying that you and several other independent MPs were forming a technical group. Can you tell us a bit more about why you took that decision and what procedural benefits you were hoping to accrue by doing so?
Iqbal Mohamed: As a single person, I am an independent MP. That is what my constituents elected me as and that does not change until or unless they want that to change. It was finding, thankfully, four other independents who overlapped and aligned on pretty much the majority of issues, challenges, policy areas, principles and our intentions for being in this place.
The intentions part is absolutely key as well. The purpose of combining as a technical group was not for extra funding. I had never heard of Short money until I got to this place. I still don’t know what it is. I know the numbers are eye-watering. The technical group was not formed for any kind of financial objective. It was to amplify and multiply the opportunities and the voice that each of us has in the House and in other forums that we can participate in in Parliament.
We hoped that numbering five—the same number as Reform and greater than the Greens and Plaid Cymru—we would be on a par with access to questions and opportunity to speak at that level. We could also co-ordinate work and activities and campaigns and, as I say, build on each other’s expertise and efforts.
Shockat Adam: I will just emphasise one point: the word that Iqbal used is co-ordinate. We can co-ordinate a lot better now as an alliance, because we are an informal loose alliance. We can discuss things and co-ordinate certain projects and statements and so on. The other thing is that we do not have a Whip. We can vote as we will. As I say often to my constituents, “You are my Whip or my party leader”. I think we vote quite similarly, but you will find that has not always been the case on every single thing.
Q19 Michael Wheeler: I have a couple of other points to follow up on that. I appreciate the point about co-ordination, but we are looking at procedural elements. In what ways has your experience as an independent MP changed since forming the group? Do you feel that your participation in proceedings has increased, either individually or collectively?
Shockat Adam: It is very difficult to say because before the alliance there was only about four weeks, and I was still getting lost getting to the Chamber at that stage. We had the recess and then we formed the alliance. I honestly cannot compare and contrast. I would not be able to say whether I have noticed any difference in the procedural process because I was not independent on my own long enough to be able to tell you that.
Iqbal Mohamed: I did benefit from the expertise of the different Members’ officers and staff, and we could co-ordinate around EDMs and questions and other things. Out of Chamber, out of Committee Room co-ordination helped me a lot but—similar to what Shockat said—I do not have any evidence to know if it would have been different had we not formed an alliance.
Q20 Michael Wheeler: You referred to other parties like Plaid, the Greens and Reform. What do you see as the advantages and disadvantages of forming a technical group as opposed to registering as a political party? Why did you opt for being a group as opposed to a party?
Iqbal Mohamed: The people who put us here put us here as independents. As I said earlier, if that changes that will change based on what my constituents want me to do. I have not investigated or looked into and never considered even until now the organisation and the elements to bring a party structure together. My constituents elected me as an independent. They are happy that I am still an independent and they are very happy that I am part of an alliance with the Members that I am in alliance with.
I walk tall representing my constituency in this place and I try to represent their views in my voting, my speaking and my actions, but I absolutely am infinitely grateful to my colleagues in the alliance for the support I feel, the camaraderie and the common policy areas that we can talk through and discuss and share with each other.
I do not want to cause any offence to any other parties, but I think we have a unity and a strength that I do not see across the House even within parties. That is not something I am saying for me. It has been observed by others and shared with me.
We want to do the maximum we can for our constituents and in the role we have, and forming an alliance, for me, has helped me along that path.
Shockat Adam: I think similarly, prior to being elected, with due respect—I am sure Iqbal will say the same—we had not even heard of each other, Iqbal, Ayoub and Adnan. I think I had heard of Adnan, but I did not know him. We had come into this completely independently. We campaigned on a lot of similar things, on NHS and so on, but we did not know each other at all. Then there was this evolution to a natural stage that I feel was an alliance. Not having had enough time to be able to formalise something, but we agreed on everything to hold a particular party. I think the natural evolution was to an alliance as a first stage.
Q21 Graeme Downie: Two questions, the first one following on from that. When you were forming the alliance, was the purpose of that focused on the procedures inside the Chamber, inside the House of Commons, or was that something you felt was more important focused out the way that you were working together in some way?
Shockat Adam: Sorry?
Graeme Downie: Did you feel that the benefits in forming the alliance were to improve how you were represented inside the House of Commons? Or did you feel the projection of that was outside that you were working together? I am trying to get a sense of the purpose of forming that alliance and what it was hoped to achieve. Was it inside here or was it more directed outside?
Shockat Adam: I think it was a bit of both. I suspect that outside it gave people something, “There is a unity among the independents”, so they were pleased that we were working together. Procedurally, we would hope that with our numbers there would be certain changes as well going forward.
Iqbal Mohamed: Primary for me was the impact in this place, so being one alone versus one of five, and having that coverage. If I am not there, I am not around. If there is an important topic, I know somebody is there. They will be speaking, and they will probably be saying what I would want to say. Participation in the questions and being selected for things is the primary aim.
There were wider communications benefits for the outside world and my constituents. They saw that as a very positive step as well. It ended up where I had benefits on both sides, but the primary objective for me was to be effective in this place and, as Shockat said, the alliance was a natural formation.
Q22 Graeme Downie: I will just pick up on the point you made there about Short money, Iqbal. If it makes you feel any better, none of us understand what it is either. Certainly, I did not before I was elected. It is available to all opposition parties in the House that secured two seats or one seat and more than 150,000 votes at the previous general election, and it helps those people run offices. Do you feel this should be extended to technical groups or political parties formed after an election and, if so, why?
Shockat Adam: It is not something that I have spent too much time thinking about. I am not advocating for it. It is not something that has really crossed my mind. Obviously, not being part of a political party means that we are at a disadvantage with what we could spend our resources on in terms of assistance, and so on. There are parties I think with the same numbers or less than us that have a lot more money, but that is the rule. It has always been the regulation that as you are a party you come in, and not once you become a party; that could lead to lots of avenues. I am not advocating for any change at this stage.
Iqbal Mohamed: To build on what Shockat said, I was elected as an independent to put in all my resources, intellect, time, energy and some finances that I was able to use for serving my community. I would like the opportunity to be able to do that to the maximum in this place.
On Short money—thanks for the summary—there are two views. As a voting member of the public, I did not understand it and I still do not understand it eight months into the role; it is opaque, but it is what it is. Whatever it is, whether you abolish it completely and you have some Opposition leader support—or office support, because that is important—so nobody gets anything, or every Member gets the same and it is linked to constituency and not number of votes across the country, because a party that got millions of votes and five seats, the five Members are representing their constituents. They are a similar size as to ours. They are not representing the millions of votes across the country, so that is a bit of an anomaly.
It is either abolish it or equalise it. That would make sense to the public. I am speaking as a member of the public rather than asking for a change or anything, but it seems a bit odd that there would be a difference between Members.
Q23 Tracy Gilbert: Thanks for coming along today. I have a supplementary. I want to take you back one question. We were talking about the advantages of being an alliance. If you were to be given technical group status, do you see if there would be any disadvantages to that compared with your current independent status at the minute?
Shockat Adam: In terms of procedural, no. In terms of the mechanisms that go behind being part of a political party, then obviously that opens up a whole different can of worms.
Iqbal Mohamed: I do not see any disadvantages of being formally recognised as a technical group. The challenges of a party—I have never been in one, and I have never tried to start one—would be many and would probably distract us at the moment from the work we have been elected to do.
Tracy Gilbert: I was thinking more about whether there would be any changes to the procedural ways that you are currently informally working just now.
Shockat Adam: Procedurally, all I can see is advantages to it.
Chair: Gurinder, do you have a quick supplementary on this question?
Q24 Gurinder Singh Josan: A supplementary on the Short money one. Iqbal, on your answer about equalising it, if that was to happen do you think there is a potential for confusion among the electorate, because on the one hand you are standing as an independent and then forming a technical group after the fact? You are then looking to be equalised with political parties who have other commitments and requirements in relation to the Electoral Commission, and there is potential for confusion.
Iqbal Mohamed: If I may clarify—sorry for not being clear earlier—I was not comparing parties to groups; it is just an MP is an MP is an MP. I was talking about individual MPs, whatever party they belonged to or did not belong to. As I say, when the electorate go to the voting booth they are not voting for a party because that party will get more Short money and might be able to do more stuff for them. They do not even know what it is. They are electing a person that they believe in or a party that they believe in and a person that represents that party. That process does not change.
My comment was about individual MPs. If they have something, shouldn’t everybody have the same? If you do not have it nobody should have it, but I am not advocating or pushing for a change or asking for funding here. My constituents know why I am here and what I am giving and what I am prepared to give for them, and we will stand and walk as tall as we can with the resources we have.
Chair: Thanks for that clarification. Lee, did you have a follow-up question about proxy voting?
Q25 Mr Lee Dillon: Yes, thank you. Potentially a two-part question: first, are you aware of proxy voting within the House?
Iqbal Mohamed: Yes.
Mr Lee Dillon: Excellent. Our Committee is currently doing an inquiry into proxy voting; not always, but more often than not, it is exercised by the Whips of relevant parties. Given your situation, do you feel that you could avail yourself of proxy voting? Have you availed yourself or the technical group availed yourself of proxy voting so far? Can you do that as easily as a political party?
Iqbal Mohamed: I learned about proxy voting in preparing for this session—I did not know before then—and I have not had to avail myself of it until now. With my children all grown up, I probably do not expect to be availing of it, God forbid, unless I am ill. But I am happy to know that I could avail of it if I needed to. There are people in the House that I trust to pick up that proxy role for me if they agreed.
Shockat Adam: Likewise. I was aware of it prior to that but, thankfully, have not had the need to use it. But if there is, now we are part of the alliance, we would be able to navigate that quite comfortably, I think.
Chair: A final question to you both from David.
Q26 David Baines: Thanks so much for the answers you have given so far; this has been helpful. Is there anything you think we have not yet touched on—any ways that the procedures and conventions of the House affect independent MPs differently from those who are members of a political party, or anything we have not touched on that you would like to cover?
Iqbal Mohamed: I don’t think so. I am good.
Shockat Adam: I think it has been comprehensively covered.
Chair: Thank you both so much for your time. Your answers have been helpful for our inquiry. If there is anything that you think about later that you wish to let the Committee know about, we are very happy to hear from you in writing and to consider it in the same way we consider the oral evidence that you have given us today.
Examination of witnesses
Witnesses: Rt Hon John McDonnell MP and Ian Byrne MP.
Q27 Chair: We now come to our second panel of today’s session on the status of independent Members of Parliament. In this panel we are exploring the procedural status of MPs who were elected for a political party but who find themselves becoming independent during the course of a Parliament, for example through suspension or resignation of their party Whip.
This afternoon I am absolutely delighted to be joined by Ian Byrne MP and the right hon. John McDonnell MP. You are very welcome. Ian and John were both elected as Labour MPs in the July 2024 general election but have had the experience of being designated as independent Members owing to a temporary suspension of the Whip. Good afternoon to you both. We are grateful for your time. Could you please introduce yourselves for the record?
John McDonnell: I am John McDonnell, the Member of Parliament for Hayes and Harlington.
Ian Byrne: Ian Byrne, Member of Parliament for Liverpool West Derby.
Q28 Chair: Thank you. I am going to start with the first question. Our inquiry is obviously examining the status of independent MPs within procedures and practices of the House. Did your ability to fully participate in all House of Commons proceedings change as a result of your suspension and re-designation as an independent MP? If so, in what way?
John McDonnell: I feel a bit of a fraud being here because the only reason I am here is because I wrote to the Speaker and said, “I am classified when I vote, and the media have picked this up as well, as an independent”. I am not. I was not elected as an independent MP. I was elected as a Labour MP. I have had the Whip suspended, not withdrawn, for six months. I have done my time, but I am waiting to see the future.
I simply wrote to the Speaker and said, “This is calling me an independent. It is causing absolute confusion in my constituency and the reportage of it is inaccurate”. I am a suspended Labour MP. The only sanction that is held against me, as a result of that suspension, is that I am not able to attend the parliamentary Labour party meetings—it is a terrible sanction. It does mean that, yes, I am not put forward for Select Committees or Bill Committees, but politically, for about 15 years, that was the case anyway when I had the Labour Whip.
My simple reason for being here is that I just think I should not be described as an independent MP. It is causing absolute confusion. People think I have left the Labour party. I have not. I am a Labour party member. I abide by the Labour Whip. The requirement of suspension is you have to abide by the Whip, and I do.
There are a couple of issues that came up this week that I might not, but we will see what happens on that. The only reason I am here—and I don’t want to delay the Committee in any way—is not to express concerns about my rights as an MP. It is simply because I should not be described as an independent MP. I am a “Labour suspended”, or whatever you want—our parish priest optimistically calls me a “lapsed Catholic”—but the nomenclature is causing confusion.
Even today, I got up and asked the Prime Minister a question. The reportage of it is “John McDonnell, independent MP”. I am not. That is the only reason I am here. I just wanted clarity on that. It is a relatively minor point: simply for the House to get the description right. I have never professed to be an independent MP. I have not stood as an independent MP, and I do not wish to. Eventually, hopefully, the Whip will be returned to me and the suspension will be ended.
Even then, I work on the basis as well that “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.” When the Whip was withdrawn, I did not make a big fuss, I just said, “Okay, that is the disciplinary procedure.” It is unusual, and it has not been used for donkey’s years, but I was accepting of it, and I just expect the Whip to be returned. In the interim period I am a suspended Labour MP, I am not an independent.
To be frank, I don’t want to go into the details of parliamentary procedures. For me, parliamentary procedures have not changed from when I was on the Back Benches, on the Front Bench or whether I was suspended or not. I operate as normal, as I always have done.
Q29 Chair: That is a helpful answer. To be clear, in terms of parliamentary procedure, there is no difference between being a member of a political party or an independent MP. In terms of our questions, it might be the best use of everyone’s time if we accept that and move on to the other questions around descriptors rather than procedural issues, if there is no difference.
John McDonnell: I don’t want to waste your time. The reason I have raised this through the Speaker is because it is exactly that. The accuracy of the depiction of me and my role, as I play it and as I have always played it.
Q30 Chair: Ian, same question to you. In terms of your experience, having been a Labour MP, having been labelled as an independent MP, how you feel about that? In terms of parliamentary procedure, do you feel you have been disadvantaged at any point because of being independent rather than Labour?
Ian Byrne: To build on what John said, I was elected proudly as a Labour MP. We have done what we did. We have received the punishment, but it has confused constituents on a huge level when it comes up “independent”. I think John and I were in full agreement, and the other Members who have been suspended were as well: how we are called and how we are titled is important, because we were elected as Labour MPs and not independents.
It is important that we reflect on this as a Committee and we consider it moving forward, because we are in strange times at the moment. There might be others who follow suit. There might be similar people who have followed the same paths, and I think where we are now, it is important that we clarify it. As I said, I am a proud Labour member; I was elected as a Labour MP, and I did want to be called an independent Labour MP, not an independent.
Chair: I think Lee had a supplementary.
Q31 Mr Lee Dillon: It was to John, if I may. John, you are a senior Member of Parliament, you were the shadow Chancellor—
John McDonnell: Ageism is creeping in here, but go on, yes.
Mr Lee Dillon: Do you think that or are you aware of anybody else who has had a Whip suspended where they have then had issues with the procedures of the House, and it is actually your seniority that stops the impact being felt?
John McDonnell: I understand. I think you have covered most of the issues with the two real independents that were here earlier, the Select Committees and Bill Committees considerations. I think there is a lesson to be learned for the House overall about flexibility, because you want to draw upon the expertise of individual MPs, particularly on Bill Committees, wherever they come from. I think we need to lighten up on some of that, to be honest.
On Select Committees, often it is within the parties themselves. I was kept off Select Committees for about 15 years by my own party because they did not think that I would reflect the views of the party. That is fair enough. That is party discipline. I do think, though—and it is a lesson for individual political parties—if you do not allow a broad range of voices, you get poorer decisions.
What worries me the most is the heavy use of a Whip—and this is beyond the Committee—all the time. I have been here nearly 28 years. The heavy use of the Whip is when the biggest mistakes are made, when people do not have an independent voice to express their own value judgments rather than just toe the line.
It is interesting that when one of my colleagues, Andy Burnham, was here, again we would have discussions about the use of the Whip at that time. He was on the Front Bench. I noticed in his recent book he was arguing for the withdrawal of the Whip process altogether. I do not agree with that. I think you need a bit of whipping for basic discipline, just to gather people together so people know there are basic procedures you are meant to follow. However, I think the overuse of the Whip means that you wind up with poor decisions. You do not draw upon the proper judgment of individual MPs and the expertise of those.
In my own situation, as I say, I am not arguing. The Whip was withdrawn. I accept the disciplinary process. It is unusual in our party for it to go that far. Usually what happens is that if you are suspended, it is often over a political issue. When the Whip is withdrawn—[Interruption.] I thought that was an assassination attempt for a minute—it is usually an indication of a permanent withdrawal. That is often linked with the perpetration of a crime or something like that, a behavioural issue.
Ian Byrne: Just touching on that, you talk about the Bill Committees. I was suspended in July. I am the lead for the Hillsborough law in Parliament that is coming down the line. Hopefully, it will get laid down before the anniversary in April. I think it would have been a loss if I had not been able to put myself forward to be on that Bill Committee, to drive something that I fought for with Andy and Steve, who asked me to take up the reins. That is something we should reflect on because people will come in here and they might be a member of a certain party, but they might have the ability to sit on a Bill Committee.
The two MPs who gave evidence before us, they have their expertise as well, and I think it is something we need to reflect on maybe to future-proof this place. Moving forward, in future elections there might be more independents that come in. There might be a different style of electoral makeup. We need to think carefully about moving forward. Maybe that goes into the Select Committees as well.
I loved my two stints on the Select Committees last parliamentary Session, but once we got suspended, as John said, I knew that was not going to be for me. I think for Bill Committees, there should be the ability for people who are independents to serve on Bill Committees to give their expertise. I think that is important for this place to reflect on.
Q32 James Asser: You slightly pre-empted my next question, but I think it will be useful to probe. I would like to probe you, John, on the suggestion you made when you wrote to the Speaker. When the Whip is suspended, either temporarily or permanently, the “independent” tag is used, as it is, indeed, if you quit the Whip. Clearly, you do not feel that that is appropriate when it is a suspension because of the confusion, as you have outlined. Do you have any thoughts on, if it was a permanent situation, if someone resigned, whether that would be appropriate?
John McDonnell: That is a good point. When it is a suspension, it should be honestly depicted as that. That is my view. Otherwise, it draws absolute confusion.
If someone is resigning the Whip, resigning from the party and all the rest, but they were elected on a party basis, I have always argued they should go back to the people who elected them. I think there should be a by-election. I have always argued that case because it is a permanent change of your political position. The reality is, no matter how much we think of it, of our individual roles, people are usually elected on the basis of their party. That is the argument I have always had. That might come back and bite me eventually, but we will have to see in the future, won’t we?
Q33 James Asser: Just to probe, because obviously you did write to the Speaker about this because of the confusion it caused, and you suggested that your descriptor be changed to “Labour (suspended)”. Could you outline what you thought—
John McDonnell: It does not read well, does it? Any form of words that basically incorporates the two. It just depicts that I am Labour. I am following the Labour Whip. I am a Labour party member. I was elected as a Labour MP, but I am suspended at the moment. There has to be some form of words that enables that to be depicted when we are being described. It is not just on the voting slips. It is not just in Hansard. It is out there.
I regularly do “Sophy Ridge”; I got interviewed there and the producer was saying to Sophy, “an independent MP”, and I said, “I’m not”. Then I did another one and it was repeated, and so she went to the producer and said, “He’s not. He has told you that twice”. It is that thing that causes absolute confusion.
Q34 James Asser: To follow up on the description. You put a suggestion that there is a degree of flexibility, and you want to explain it. Essentially there are two forms of suspension of the Whip, aren’t there? There is the party discipline process that you have broken a Whip, and the Whips have decided to withdraw it for a period. Also, obviously, as we saw in the last Parliament, often people lose the Whip because there has been a misdemeanour, either in the House or in the wider world. Do you think there is a danger in the sense that, if you are described as “Labour suspended”, or words to that effect, it causes additional confusion rather than being seen as you have been incriminated for something you have not done?
John McDonnell: Usually, when there is a disciplinary matter that is based upon crime or something like that, it is more of a permanent exclusion, permanent withdrawal. The Whip down is a political suspension. That is the usual practice of the House. But, as I say, I don’t think this is a huge issue. I think it is just a matter of clarification—simple as that.
Q35 James Asser: Just a quick one: when you reached out, was there any discussion with the Whips about the descriptor or was that not a conversation that was had?
John McDonnell: I have a regular conversation with the Chief Whip on a number of topics, as you can imagine. However, on this, I don’t think it was the party processes that got involved. It was the House procedures. I think the parties largely followed the descriptors that the House lays down. That is why I wrote to the Speaker and not to the leader of the party.
James Asser: That is helpful because we have probed the House authorities in a previous session, so it is useful to hear.
John McDonnell: Whoever is to blame, let me know and I will write to them.
Chair: Tracy, do you have a follow up on this?
Q36 Tracy Gilbert: It was to ask Ian a similar question. Do you think there were any other descriptors that would have been useful for you during your suspension that would be different from John’s position?
Ian Byrne: No, I think we could agree to a form of words when it happens. I was suspended; I think that was fine. I did want to keep the Labour party, and I think that is what John was looking at and I was as well, just to avoid the confusion within the constituency—because it did cause an awful lot of confusion. People who obviously were elected as Labour MPs and within a month we were called independents, and people were saying they did not vote for an independent. As John said, people vote for the party not for the person normally, nine times out of 10. So, it did cause a lot of confusion. I think it is something we need to reflect on.
John McDonnell: People rightfully said, “I did not vote for you as an independent”. “No, you didn’t. That is why I follow the Labour Whip. As far as I am concerned, I am a Labour MP. I am suspended from the Whip, but I am still a Labour MP.” What has happened now is, because you have an independent group—the technical group—people think we are part of that now. I am saying, “No, I am not”. As much as I like Jeremy Corbyn, I am not part of that technical group—simple as that.
Ian Byrne: I think people do get confused when you say you are still following the Whip, but you are suspended, and they say, “You are an independent now, aren’t you?” It is all in people’s minds, so I think it needs clarifying.
Q37 Sir Christopher Chope: As somebody who very much supports the principle of independently-minded MPs, can I ask you, John, first, obviously if you are elected as a Labour member and then the Labour party expels you, you are no longer entitled to the party political descriptor of being Labour? However, unless or until you are expelled, is what you are saying to us that you should be entitled to continue to use that descriptor as being a Labour Member of Parliament and then whatever else you want to put in brackets after it?
John McDonnell: Yes, exactly that. In our procedures, again, the suspension of the Whip is very rare. It has happened in the past, Aneurin Bevan and people like that, Harold Wilson. There are real prospects for people who have been suspended, but in our—
James Asser: Your time may yet come!
John McDonnell: I was referring to Ian, actually. With us what happens is that the Whip is suspended, the party membership continues, and, as I say, you are obliged to follow the Whip, which we do, and you are entitled to operate as a party. I went to the Labour party conference; I am allowed to go as a party member, not ex officio, that sort of thing.
We have to make sure how we describe each other reflects the reality of what it is. If you are expelled from the party, that is it. You are out. On that basis, the individual will have to make their minds up about what they do, whether they remain in or whether they go back to the electorate, basically. That is the difference—suspension as against expulsion.
Also, in terms of procedures, I still follow the briefings the party gives us. The procedure is now under our own Standing Orders, although they are being revised at the moment. If any party member who is in the House or whatever—and that includes us even though we are suspended with the Whip—if we are moving an amendment to the Bill or we are putting an early day motion down, the onus is on us to contact the Front Bench Member on that Bill or that particular issue to inform them of what we are doing. You do not have to have permission, but you have to give them notice and you have to have that opportunity to have that discussion and debate, and allow them to persuade you otherwise, or you be allowed to persuade them otherwise. We abide by that.
Q38 Sir Christopher Chope: Is there a distinction in your party between having the Whip withdrawn and the Whip suspended? Or does it amount to the same thing?
John McDonnell: I think the withdrawal is on a permanent basis. The suspension is a temporary one. When we were suspended, we were given six-month sentences—simple as that.
Sir Christopher Chope: You could still have the Whip withdrawn, but not be expelled from the party?
John McDonnell: Yes. I think the examples in the past have been usually simultaneous. If it is so serious, you will have the Whip withdrawn and you will be expelled as well. With us it was suspension, but you continue on as normal as a party member.
Q39 Sir Christopher Chope: If you were going to have a descriptor after your “Labour”, would it be “temporarily suspended”, or it could also have “Labour withdrawn” or something like that?
John McDonnell: “Labour or innocent”, or something like that. No, I am being silly. When I wrote to the Speaker, just to clarify things, I said “Labour suspended”, and that is what we are. I just wanted to reflect the reality of it because it has caused confusion, and it does undermine your position within the constituency itself.
This sounds bizarre, because there are so many other issues we deal with, but people raise this on a regular basis and I have to say, “No, I am not. I am not an independent; I am a Labour party member. I am suspended, I have had the Whip suspended” and whatever, but that is all. I have been in the Labour party 50 years. I have been in it most probably twice as long as those people who suspended me, but there you are. I am proud of that. I don’t want that disassociation. It is as simple as that.
Q40 Mr Lee Dillon: The House of Commons website shows Members’ party affiliation. I think we are quite clear on what your views are on the descriptors, but should that profile say more about why any given period was served as an independent or Labour suspended? Then should those periods eventually be deleted off that record? Once your suspension is over, there is no need to have a track record of every time you got suspended.
John McDonnell: I don’t think people are interested in the record of crimes against the party. It is as simple as that. All I am asking for—I think Ian agrees—is I don’t think people are interested in the ins and outs; they just want to know your status. At the moment, is John McDonnell independent? Well, that is not the case. Is John McDonnell Labour suspended? If we go into more detail—I will save that for the memoirs.
Ian Byrne: It will be a long chapter.
Q41 Michael Wheeler: Obviously it is the Procedure Committee, let’s talk about some process. If there were more descriptor options other than just party names or independent available, how do you think the process should work for a Member choosing how to describe themselves?
John McDonnell: The way the House operates at the moment is party labels. I think that is the best way to do it. If people want to describe themselves, because they were elected as independents and they want to describe themselves as independents, that is fine, but I think for clarity purposes the party labels are useful. That is why I want to maintain a party label.
Ian Byrne: Absolutely, Michael, yes.
Q42 Michael Wheeler: To follow up on that, to what extent do you think that the political parties themselves should have a say over the use of the party name in Member affiliation descriptors?
John McDonnell: I think there is a role for the party to have a say. I would expect, particularly in my situation, the Labour party would want clarity, which is that I am Labour, and I am suspended. If the party wants to go further than that, I think that does imply that it is furthering the disciplinary process. If that is the case, we should build it into the party disciplinary process so that people know the potential sanction there is.
Michael Wheeler: Anything, Ian?
Ian Byrne: No; that is a fair point.
Q43 Michael Wheeler: There are a couple of small points. Do you think there are any risks attached allowing Members to choose their own descriptor, if more were available?
John McDonnell: There might be some literary offences, definitely. I am not arguing for that. I think that when people stand for election, the descriptor that they use then to the electorate is the one that they should hold to.
Ian Byrne: It should carry through Parliament.
John McDonnell: Yes.
Ian Byrne: Then be amended if suspended.
Q44 Michael Wheeler: Finally, and it harkens back to the earlier point: to what extent do you think that the parties, if there was a difference of view, should have the final say, as the owners of the brand?
John McDonnell: The parties themselves have to have the ability to depict who they are, and that should relate to the depiction that the candidate had as part of that party when they stood, but as actions of the party take place they should also be allowed, therefore, to ensure that that depiction is updated.
Ian Byrne: The House also should have oversight of what we are called. You are representing them on a mandate from the electorate, so for me the House should have the say. If we are elected as Labour party MPs, we are Labour party MPs. If we are suspended, we will put “suspended” next to it.
Q45 Michael Wheeler: To pick up on that particular point, what you are saying is, if there was a conflict between the chosen descriptor of any particular MP and the party to which that descriptor related, you think the House should have the say, not the party?
Ian Byrne: To an elected MP, yes.
Q46 Mary Kelly Foy: You have probably covered this mostly, but we have heard your own thoughts on what your explanation is and how you would like to be described but, as you said, there could be a few other colleagues who may join the suspended gang in the future. Hypothetically, if you had chosen to form a grouping with other colleagues in a similar situation, how would you expect to be treated under the procedures and practices of the House and relative to a registered party? Do you think you should be permitted to use a name of that group as an affiliated descriptor especially for Hansard and on the parliamentary website?
John McDonnell: Not a group; I have no intention of forming a group. I have made that extremely explicit all the way through. That would be contrary to the Labour party rules—a party within a party—and we would never seek to do that.
Q47 Mary Kelly Foy: That was more hypothetical: if there were a larger grouping of suspended MPs—not you particularly—who then might want to see, themselves as a group, do you think this should be permitted? Clearly, treated the same as any other registered party, but should they be able to use the name of that grouping if they did decide to form a grouping? This is hypothetical.
John McDonnell: Yes, it is hypothetical.
Ian Byrne: Like a technical group you are talking about?
Mary Kelly Foy: Yes. If it were a group going forward, a larger group, and they wanted to have a name or an affiliated descriptor.
John McDonnell: I get the impression that anything you say now will be used in evidence against you at a future date. It is a hypothetical question and, to be honest, that is not anywhere near the ballgame we are at. There were seven people suspended, none of them wanted to form a political group, none of them have any intention to form a political grouping, and they simply wanted to be accurately described and, at the same time, receive the Whip back at the shortest opportunity.
Chair: Our final question is from Gurinder.
Q48 Gurinder Singh Josan: I understand that you are saying that, from your perspective, this is helping the public understand accurately what your current situation is. Is there a risk around if you have lots of different descriptors that some of the parliamentary documents could be less accessible or understandable?
John McDonnell: Yes; that is why I only want one word inserted.
Ian Byrne: Absolutely, yes.
Chair: That is a clear answer there. I want to thank you both for your time in helping our Committee understand the status of independent MPs in parliamentary procedures. If there is anything else that you want to add to your evidence, the Committee will be very happy to hear from you both in writing. All that is left is to thank you for your time. That concludes today’s evidence session.