Sue Gray's report said “The excessive consumption of alcohol is not appropriate in a professional workplace at any time."

TBH, I would say the consumption of any alcohol in a work place is inappropriate, just the same as any other addictive drug.

I don't think there should be bars in the Houses of Parliament. I also think they should introduce a normal working day, vote electronically and sit in a horseshoe shape, which would be far less confrontational.
In fact they need a new building because the Parliament building is no longer fit for purpose.

No harm in having a bar IMO , but it seems that common sense & personal restraint isn’t in enough abundance , so it may be time for a change ,but once again it is the many that pay the price because of a few Id - - ts!

Totaly agree Whitewavemark2.
I`m always surprised when i see workmen/women going for a drink at lunchtime then back to work,very dangerous imo.

I agree Mamie no need for a bar in the Houses of Parliament. If members want to entertain guests there are bars and restaurants not far away. Definitely no need for food and drink to be subsidised either.

Excessive is the pertinent word. I don't think it's government's job to legislate against any drinking alcohol in work places. Context matters and sometimes it is appropriate.

This piece is alarming:

www.businessinsider.com/the-hidden-drinking-problem-in-uk-parliament-2022-3?r=US&IR=T

Drinking sessions have sometimes "ended in fights and arguments and other embarrassing situations … MPs have gone up to other members in the lobby and started slurring, or you get men harassing women," he adds. "You have the same names always in [the MP-only bar] the Smoking Room, coming out with alcohol on their breath, stumbling into the lobby [to vote]."

One junior MP said party whips "would much rather some members, especially those more rebellious ones, get inebriated so they are easier to guide as to which lobby to go through" when voting.

Another suggested the attitude was "always that 'we will take it down and use it against you' — surely if we are friends and colleagues, just checking in would be a start?" Party whips' offices on both sides of the aisle have decades-long reputations for storing negative information about members of parliament in case they need it to persuade them to do their bidding.

One former minister told Insider: "The whips are openly trawling the bars — not for the welfare aspect, but because they think 'let's get Joe Bloggs, let's get the dirt on his behaviour.'"

Frankly, it's appallingly that decisions which affect all of us are made under the influence of alcohol and blackmail.

Mamie

I don't think there should be bars in the Houses of Parliament. I also think they should introduce a normal working day, vote electronically and sit in a horseshoe shape, which would be far less confrontational.
In fact they need a new building because the Parliament building is no longer fit for purpose.

I totally agree Mamie and think the only answer is a new building - out of London.

Whitewave Yes! I agree with you comparison with drugs. Not that anyone would be taking them in parliament

Baggs I didn't suggest any additional legislation. I think Health and Safety rules probably cover drinking in many workplaces. Perhaps someone can tell us.

I can’t think of any circumstances at all in which it is appropriate to drink alcohol at work. It’s been banned for NHS employees for over 30 years.

The public pays for these politicians to have a clear mind and represent their wishes. Not for them to indulge themselves with alcohol and make uninformed and careless decisions. They should be booted out if they drink on the job.

I agree with Mamie

Wow - OakDryad

It makes me think a more sensible working day and out of that building is even more important. "All inhibitions are soluble in alcohol" and I quite like the idea that our MP would think about what they are voting for.

Back in the 1960s I worked for an American company in London.

Not only was drinking in the office in office hours a sackable offence, but you would be sacked if you even had a bottle of alcohol on the office premises.

The OP raises an interesting point, although (s)he has said only "excessive" consumption.

Like sodapop I expect we as taxpayers are subsidising the prices, although I hope this is not how it works.

It's about time that politicians learned to apply the same rules to themselves as they impose on the rest of us. I was appalled to read that Ben Wallace was trying to excuse Neil Parish (NP) because of the long hours and the time away from close family. How do these factors excuse what NP did?

It is fortunate that NP caved in to pressure to resign quickly and voluntarily when what he did would lead to a swift suspension in any other job followed by a swift dismissal. If there had been an investigation as originally expected he could have remained an MP until that concluded, which could have taken months.

The sense of entitlement of MPs is breathtaking and the lack of a proper employment structure for them and their staff was always bound to lead to wriggling off the hook unless forced to resign and the freedom to bully their staff.

We don't smoke at work these days - so why allow drinking?

I think taxpayers heavily subsidise food and alcohol in the bars and restaurants of the Houses of Parliament and this should be stopped.
Cheap booze encourages bad behaviour and should not be allowed. There are plenty if pubs and restaurants in the area where they can go and pay like the rest of us.

when i got a job based at a town hall in the 1980s, there was a staff bar in the basement.
it was meant for after hours, late working, meetings etc.
not sure how it was used, i haven't drunk alcohol since i was 16.
anyway, within a few years it disappeared, on the grounds that the space was needed by reprographics.
then it was a known rule that you were not meant to drink any alcohol during the working day, even during lunch hour if returning to work afterwards.
again, i am not sure how well this was observed.
my job was mostly outside the office and our dept was generally more aware and observant or rules.
by

I worked in the Civil Service. They allowed people to bring alcohol in for retirement parties etc, usually a few bottles of wine.

Ramblingrose22 I did not use the phrase "excessive consumption". It was, as noted, a quote from Sue Gray's report.

Not something I would normally say but as you seem unable to decide which pronouns were appropriate for someone calling herself DaisyAnne - I am comfortable with she/her.

Frankly, it's appallingly that decisions which affect all of us are made under the influence of alcohol and blackmail.

It really is.

I'm losing the plot here - has the report been published?

I'm waiting for the penguin edition

I thought the report was on hold until the Met Police had reported, and that their report was on hold until after the May local elections!

Why the Met have to consider the politics I have no idea.

Talk about kicking the can down the road.

DaisyAnne

Wow - OakDryad

It makes me think a more sensible working day and out of that building is even more important. "All inhibitions are soluble in alcohol" and I quite like the idea that our MP would think about what they are voting for.

The Ministerial Code has been much in the news of late. It's clear that members drinking to excess and whips manipulating and blackmailing the drunks means it is being breached all the time:

1.1 Ministers of the Crown are expected to maintain high standards of behaviour and to behave in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.

1.2 Ministers should be professional in all their dealings and treat all those with whom they come into contact with consideration and respect. Working relationships, including with civil servants, ministerial and parliamentary colleagues and parliamentary staff should be proper and appropriate. Harassing, bullying or other inappropriate or discriminating behaviour wherever it takes place is not consistent with the Ministerial Code and will not be tolerated.

The Code is administered by the Propriety and Ethics group within the Cabinet Office but the Institute for Government states that it is still for the prime minister to decide whether any investigation into potential breaches should take place. It all comes down to leadership ...