Letter to the Chairman of the Committee
on Standards and Privileges from Lord Neill of Bladen QC, Committee
on Standards in Public Life
My colleagues and I have now had an opportunity to
consider carefully your consultation paper on proposed amendments
to the rules relating to the conduct of Members of Parliament.
As you will expect, our principal interest, in relation
to the specific proposals you make, is in the proposed changes
to the guidance on the application of the advocacy rule. It appears
that you received representations similar to those which we received
during the enquiry which led to the publication of our Sixth Report
and you have concluded, as we did, that the application of the
advocacy rule to overseas visits funded by a foreign Government
requires modification. My colleagues and I support your proposals
in that regard.
Where I believe we continue to differ is that my
Committee was of the view that the modification of the guidance
should be applied more generally to all interests subject, of
course, to the ban on paid advocacy and the rules on declaration
and registration of interests. In our view, the safeguard afforded
by the ban on paid advocacy and by the requirement of openness,
coupled with a further requirement that a Member should indicate
an interest on the Order Paper (or Notice Paper), would be sufficient
to protect against abuse. I hope that after the change in the
guidance in relation to overseas visits has been in operation
for a reasonable period (assuming that it is adopted by the House),
your Committee will re-visit this broader issue, taking into account
the experience acquired in relation to the changed rules for overseas
visits.
Having reflected not only on the individual elements
of your consultation paper but also on its collective effect,
I would like to make a general point. You will recall that when
you kindly came to give evidence in our recent enquiry into the
House of Lords, you said the following about the development of
the present House of Commons' Code: "... as one finds
out more details of what people have done, one keeps adding a
bit more and the result is a very complicated code. Our task is
to try to simplify it." (Volume 2 of the Seventh Report
(Cm 4903), page 206, paragraph 2705).
My colleagues and I share your disquiet about this
development and fear that there is a risk that the general principles
of the House of Commons' Code will be obscured by the detail of
the accompanying guidance. We are therefore concerned lest the
general effect of the proposals set out in your consultation paper
will exacerbate rather than ameliorate the trend to which you
alluded in your evidence. No doubt this is a matter which you
and your colleagues already have well in view. Your overall objective
to "simplify" seems to us admirable.
December 2000
| 
