House of Commons - Standards and Privileges

Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Fourth Report

Review of the Code of Conduct

1. In November 2002, in its Eighth Report,[1] the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that, in each Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should initiate a review of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules. In our Second Report of Session 2002-03,[2] we accepted that it would be sensible for the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules to be reviewed once in each Parliament. This report was debated by the House on 26 June 2003.

2. The House approved the original Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules on 24 July 1996. In our Ninth Report of Session 2001-02,[3] we proposed a new Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, building on work done in the previous Parliament. This was approved by the House on 14 May 2002. A number of significant changes were made to the Guide, but no change was made to the substance of the Code, the only amendment being the addition of a provision clarifying that, while it applied to all aspects of Members' public lives, the Code did not seek to regulate what they did in their 'purely private and personal lives'.

The consultation exercise

3. Having regard both to the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and to the fact that the Code had remained essentially unaltered in substance for some eight years, we welcomed the proposal last year by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards that he should initiate a review.

4. The Commissioner has now reported to us on the outcome of the consultation exercise on revision of the Code which he initiated in July 2004, and made a number of recommendations. His memorandum to the Committee is reproduced at Appendix 1. We are grateful to him for undertaking this thorough review, and to all those who responded to the consultation exercise. The Commissioner has listed them at the end of his memorandum.

5. It is clear from the responses received by the Commissioner that there is no general feeling, either inside or outside the House, that the Code needs major revision. We welcome this as a demonstration that the Code continues to achieve the objectives for which it was created in the first place.

The Commissioner's proposals

6. The Commissioner has, however, proposed a number of specific changes, some reflecting recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life and others being refinements building on experience of operating the existing Code over the last eight years. He has also taken the opportunity to present the provisions of the Code in a more accessible way. In particular, the source of many of the obligations is now made clearer through references to the relevant Resolutions of the House. A draft of the Commissioner's proposed revision of the Code is attached to his memorandum.[4]

7. The principal changes proposed by the Commissioner are:

i) addition of provisions to make clearer the purpose and scope of the Code;

ii) new statements of Members' duties in respect of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, implementing recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and

iii) extension of the existing provisions regarding misuse of Parliamentary allowances to misuse of facilities and services provided by the House.

8. We agree with the Commissioner in all the changes to the Code which he has recommended.

A non-discrimination provision

9. We would also like to propose one further modification to the draft Code the Commissioner has produced, relating to the inclusion of an explicit commitment to equality. Such a provision is commonly included in professional codes of practice, and we believe that the House should do likewise.

10. The Commissioner, having carefully weighed the issues in his memorandum, concluded that the balance of advantage lay with making no change to the existing Code on this point.[5] However, he has also, at our request, prepared a further note, reproduced at Appendix 2,[6] in which he summarises the principal arguments for and against inclusion of such a provision, and suggests possible ways of incorporating a commitment to equality in the Code.

11. We recognise, as did the Commissioner, that the arguments for and against the inclusion of such a provision are finely balanced. We consider, though, that inclusion of a provision committing Members to upholding their legal obligations in relation to equality would, at the least, be of considerable symbolic significance in reaffirming to all citizens the commitment of this House to ensuring that they are treated equally under the law. It would also reflect current best practice.

12. We have therefore amended the Commissioner's draft by adding to the principle about the public duty of Members to uphold the law (a duty which has always been in the Code) the words, "including the general law against discrimination". We are satisfied that, in the terms in which we have expressed this commitment to equality, it should neither impose additional burdens on Members, nor draw the Commissioner into areas where it will be difficult to demonstrate objectively the truth or otherwise of complaints.

Misuse of facilities and services

13. Implementation of the proposal to bring misuse of facilities and services within the Code raises, as the Commissioner recognises in Recommendation 13(b),[7] a practical issue, namely, how to avoid the risk of the Commissioner being swamped by a large number of complaints relating to minor allegations of misuse of services. It also highlights, as Recommendation 13(c) recognises,[8] an issue of principle which already arises in relation to the different handling of cases of misuse of allowances depending on whether they arise by way of complaint to the Commissioner, or otherwise come to the direct attention of the House authorities. The issue here is whether there should in future be a level playing field. We deal with each in turn below.

Avoiding overloading the Commissioner

14. As complaints about the misuse of facilities and services will henceforth fall within the responsibilities of the Commissioner if the House agrees to the new Code, the present arrangements whereby they are received and disposed of by the Serjeant at Arms and other House officials will no longer be appropriate other than in respect of evidence of misuse which they uncover themselves. However, the present arrangements for investigating such matters appear to work well and to command general confidence. It would therefore be sensible to build on them, while ensuring that overall control of the investigation is in the hands of the Commissioner. This would also help reduce the additional burden on the Commissioner from bringing misuse of facilities and services within the Code.

15. We recommend that all complaints received by the Commissioner relating to alleged misuse of facilities and services should be referred by him to the appropriate House authorities for investigation of the facts. When they have reported back, he would decide whether to dismiss the complaint; investigate it further and report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges; or to request the authority concerned to secure appropriate financial reimbursement.

16. At present, there is no mechanism whereby the Commissioner can refer complaints alleging misuse of allowances to the Director of Finance and Administration for investigation. Any such complaint, however minor, is subject to the Commissioner's full investigative procedure, in the course of which the Commissioner must necessarily draw heavily on factual material provided by the Department of Finance and Administration. We consider that there would be advantage if, in future, complaints alleging misuse of allowances were initially dealt with in a manner similar to that which we have recommended in respect of complaints alleging misuse of facilities and services.

17. We therefore recommend that all such complaints be referred by the Commissioner to the Department of Finance and Administration for investigation of the facts. The Department would report back to him and he would then decide whether to dismiss the complaint; investigate it further and report to the Committee on Standards and Privileges; or to request the Department to secure appropriate finance reimbursement.

18. As we have already said, proceeding in this way should help to keep down the Commissioner's workload in relation to complaints alleging abuse of allowances, services and facilities, while continuing to leave him in overall charge of the investigation of all complaints. It would also have a beneficial effect in that in all instances of possible misuse, regardless of whether they come to the attention of the Commissioner through a complaint, or otherwise come to the attention of the House authorities, the facts would be established in the same way.

A level playing field

19. At present, complaints accepted for investigation by the Commissioner, whatever their nature and the sums or issues involved, attract the full panoply of the Code, an investigation by the Commissioner and (unless they fall within the limited category of complaints for which the rectification procedure is appropriate) the prospect of a public adjudication by the Committee and action against the Member by the House. On the other hand, any case of misuse of facilities or allowances coming to the attention of the House authorities direct is resolved privately by negotiation between the relevant House officials and the Member concerned, the only sanction in practice being repayment of sums inappropriately claimed or reimbursement of the cost of resources improperly used.

20. The Commissioner has recommended that the House should consider whether the Director of Finance and Administration, the Serjeant at Arms and other relevant House authorities should henceforth have an obligation to refer to the Commissioner for investigation under the Code the more significant instances of misuse, particularly those where there is prima facie evidence of deliberate abuse, which come independently to their attention. In the interests of equity between Members, and of maintaining public confidence, we support his recommendation.

21. We recognize that introduction of a mechanism whereby departments of the House took the initiative in referring matters to the Commissioner might have implications for Members' relationships with these departments. Very clear guidelines would need to be laid down for the exercise of such a function. If the House approves this proposal in principle, the Committee would expect, before implementation, to submit draft guidelines for its approval.

The new Code of Conduct

22. We attach as an Annex a draft of the revised Code of Conduct in the terms in which we commend it to the House for approval. We recommend that it be considered by the House in time for the new Code to come into effect at the start of the next Parliamentary Session. In the event that a Dissolution of Parliament intervenes before it can do so, we recommend that our proposals be considered by the House within three months of the meeting of the new Parliament.