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

Fascinating that this research has been attempted OakDryad. As little as it tells us, I think it is on the side of getting away from the club for "gentlemen" who feel they have the right to rule and more to a job they are employed to do.

We have already gone some way with it but oh, how slow is the updating of this dinosaur of democracy.

Which means we do not know.

In 2016, Kings College London attempted to conduct a study of alcohol consumption by Members of Parliament asking all 650 members to complete a short survey. Only 146 (22%) responded. (Median time taken by respondents was 4 minutes.) Older men were particular under-represented in the results.

Reseachers explained that:

Alcohol use among civil servants has been studied extensively in the Whitehall studies that explored social determinants of health, with clear findings of adverse effects on cardiovascular and cognitive function associated with drinking at levels above recommended guidelines. Although high workloads, job stress and using alcohol to unwind after work are known to be associated with risky drinking this has so far not been studied in UK parliamentarians.

We found a higher proportion of MPs with risky drinking compared with the English population and similar weighted proportions when compared with corporate managers, all managers and high-income groups.

The overall rate of risky drinking did not significantly differ from groups comparable in both socioeconomic and occupational status. However, the findings of higher weighted averages for drinking at least four times per week, drinking at least 10 units on a typical drinking day, drinking 6 units or more in a single drinking episode and feeling guilty about their drinking raises concerns both about overall weekly consumption and over possible binge drinking.

A weakness of the study was the low response rate felt to be due to:

a possible fear of being identified, of stigmatisation, and of the potential reputational damage associated with adverse media coverage may have influenced the response rate. We tried to reduce these biases by promoting the survey in parliament, by sending several reminders, and by stressing the brevity as well as the anonymity of the survey. In spite of this, the response rate was low. Generally, MPs are a difficult survey population to engage, which has also been confirmed in a 2008 internal UK parliament survey, where only 14.5% (94 MPs) responded.

bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/3/e034929

How many MPs regularly consume alcohol on parliamentary premises during their working hours.

There must be teetotallers, light and moderate drinkers and those who do not drink when working, among those 600 plus members.

In December ‘21 the Sunday Times reported that all but one of twelve lavatory areas tested for it showed traces of cocaine. The Speaker said he would be raising the issue with the Met.

Kate1949 I left my local authority job in 2016, we too had drinks after 5 in the office for people leaving, Christmas etc and often went to pub on a Friday lunchtime. Prior to that I worked for a large company who had a licensed, subsidised clubhouse in the grounds, left there in 2000.

Of course they should DaisyAnne.

I have a strong suspicion that Rees Mogg has been as the cider again with his ludicrious Why does a fish finger need an ID? remark. I'm sure the Electoral Reform Society will have a witty answer to that.

West Country members are not having a good weekend, are they? I suggest Rees Mogg meets his colleague George Eustice, member for Camborne and Redruth and Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to explain the post-Brexit legislation on importing or moving fish to the UK.

It's like Lord Frost so furious about the Northern Ireland protocol that he negotiated. (Also the man being touted to stand for Tractor Parish's seat. )

How I wish HIGNFY was on at the moment. Looking forward to the next Eye.

I can only think "standards" must be taken outside the governing party OakDryad. It's not as if this is just a company. It's politics. They really shouldn't be policing there own standards. I would want no less than a normal job contract would dictate.

I think everything about parliament needs a complete overhaul. The shouting and filibustering is ridiculous. It’s great fun when everything is going smoothly but at times of crisis we need something a bit more grown up. It isn’t an old boys club. It’s the government of this country and our lives and well being depend upon it.

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 ...

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.

I'm waiting for the penguin edition

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

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

It really is.

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.

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

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I agree with Mamie

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 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.