1 Review of the year
1.1 In the second year of this Parliament I have
focused on strengthening the systems for sustaining high standards
among Members. The role of the Commissioner is far more than intervening
when things have gone wrong. In my view it is even more important
that the Commissioner supports the House and all its Members to
prevent problems before they arise. As part of my contribution
to this important work, in the last year I concluded my review
of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament to ensure it
continued to reflect the standards expected of all Members. As
a result I consider that the House has, except in one respect,
a Code which meets today's expectations of Members and sustains
the reputation and integrity of Parliament.
1.2 The existence of a Code of Conduct is in my view
an essential requirement for any democratic institution. But alone
it is not sufficient to ensure public confidence in the probity
of its Members. People need to have confidence that the principles
will be consistently met and that standards will be upheld.
1.3 The publication, in November 2011, of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life's survey of public attitudes was a
timely, if sobering reminder of the size of the task still before
the House. This was the fourth survey of public attitudes to the
standards of conduct of public office holders in the UK and, as
previous surveys, included public perceptions of Members of Parliament.
It was undertaken between December and January 2010. As the Committee
on Standards in Public Life said, the results make stark reading:
while public confidence in those holding public office has been
on a long term decline since 2004, the 2010 results suggest that
the rate of decline may have increased. The Committee on Standards
in Public Life noted that MPs fell short of what people expected
of them on all the dimensions covered in the survey-with the exception
of not taking bribes. While there was no change in levels of trust
in Ministers and MPs in general the proportion who considered
that most Members told the truth fell from 26 to 20 per cent and
only 8 per cent felt they owned up when they made a mistake.
1.4 It is fair to point out that this was a survey
of the public perception of Members' conduct. It does not
purport to be an accurate reflection of the conduct itself or
of the current standards followed by Members. There were also
some more positive signs, for example the survey found that the
proportion believing the authorities will generally uncover wrongdoing
by those in public office rose from 39% to 44% and confidence
that the authorities would punish those caught doing wrong increased
from 33% to 36%. And fewer people believed that MPs based their
decisions on what would make their party popular (9%) or what
might affect their political career (8%). Nevertheless, the survey
was a sobering reminder, if any were needed, that Parliament suffered
heavy blows to its reputation in the final years of the last Parliament
and it will take some considerable time, and a record of continuing
probity, to restore and to strengthen the public's perception
of their elected Members.
1.5 In the light of the findings of this survey it
was perhaps timely that the House had the opportunity to consider
and agree a new Code of Conduct. My review of the Code of Conduct
enabled me to consider whether the Code needed some revision in
the light of public expectations and the experiences of the last
Parliament. And it enabled the House as a whole to commit the
current Parliament to the Code's purpose and expectations.
1.6 This is not the first time that the Code has
been revised since it was first agreed by the House in 1996. The
Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2002 that
it should be reviewed once in each Parliament.[1]
I think this is valuable advice. The Code should expect to have
some longevity, but should be revisited, from time to time—both
to be sure that it still meets public expectations and to provide
Members of the Parliament at the time with an opportunity to consider
and commit to their Code. Having consulted widely, including past
and present Members and the current Committee on Standards in
Public Life, I submitted my conclusions to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges in October 2011. The Committee submitted its report
to the House the following month.
1.7 Overall, I endorsed the main tenets of the Code.
In my view it is right that it should set out the expectations
at a relatively high level of principle rather than turning itself
into a detailed rule book. It is right that the Code should commit
Members to the seven principles of conduct in public life established
by the Committee on Standards in Public Life as far back as 1995.
And it is right that it should establish some key high level rules
of conduct to which all Members are expected to adhere. But I
thought that the Code could usefully distinguish more clearly
between the general aspirations and the specific rules, that some
of the rules could be rephrased to ensure they could be better
understood and more objectively judged and that the principle
that Members should be accountable for adhering to these rules
should be more clearly established. Under the Code, that accountability
is exercised through inquiry by the Commissioner, who reports
to the relevant select Committee, who itself reports to the House.
1.8 I recommended also that the Code should normally
be confined to conduct which related in any way to membership
of the House, and that it should not routinely continue to apply
to all aspects of a Member's public life. This was because I did
not believe that a parliamentary code was the place to regulate
Members' other public activities, such as their work as a barrister
or on the board of a public company, particularly given there
were separate regulators for that.
1.9 But that narrowing of the remit of the Code needed
in my view to be balanced by a provision which I recommended and
which would have allowed Members to have been made accountable
for any actions undertaken in any capacity which had the effect
of significantly damaging the reputation and integrity of the
House of Commons as a whole or of its Members generally. The events
of the last Parliament well demonstrated how the actions of individual
Members can affect the reputation and integrity of the whole House.
Democracy and good governance depend crucially on maintaining
confidence in the House of Commons as an institution. It is right
in my view that the institution should be able to take action
against a Member whose conduct has demonstrably and significantly
damaged Parliament itself.
1.10 With one drafting amendment, the Committee endorsed
my recommendations in full. It submitted in November 2011 a revised
Code for the House's approval. The revised Code was considered
by the House in a debate on 12 March 2012.
1.11 In explaining the revised code to the House,
the Chair of the Committee, the Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP, said the
following:
"In approving the Code of Conduct today,
the House will be setting the framework for the rules that will,
I hope, last for the remainder of this Parliament and into the
next. It is important to be clear about what the Code is for.
It is not a rule book that sets out precise instructions about
what is and is not permissible in each case..... The Code has
a broader function: it helps us to ensure that we behave in way
that is consistent with the seven principles of public life—the
Nolan principles, which are part of the Code and which underpin
its provisions. Where appropriate, the Code is supplemented by
more detailed statements of some of the rules, such as the guide
to the rules, and the rules on the use of House facilities, but
Members have ultimate responsibility for ensuring that they abide
by the principles of the Code."
1.12 I was pleased that after debate the whole House
agreed without division to the revised Code, with one exception.
The House agreed to an amendment to the Code which prevents the
Commissioner from investigating a specific matter which allegedly
has caused significant damage to the reputation and integrity
of the House or of its Members generally if that matter related
only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal
lives. The result is that the Code—and the House—has
accepted that Members' conduct in their private and personal lives
could exceptionally cause such damage, but the established means
of resolving fairly and independently such matters cannot be invoked.
In my judgement this leaves the Code in an unsatisfactory and
unsettled position. In such wholly exceptional circumstances where,
by definition, the pressures on the House to act are likely to
be immense, the House would either be unable to act or would have
to try to initiate some unprecedented procedure without the involvement
of the independent Commissioner appointed by the House to do this
work.
1.13 I recognise the House's concern about any intrusion
into a Member's private and personal life. Like anyone else, Members
are entitled to a private and personal life and for that to remain
private. Any intrusion into that should be both necessary and
proportionate. There needs to be a very clear public interest
in such intrusion, recognising, as the rule in the Code itself
says, that any conflict between the private and public interest
must be resolved in favour of the public interest. I recognise
that the House may wish to satisfy itself that in such circumstances
an investigation is necessary to protect the reputation and integrity
of the House before the Commissioner embarks on such an investigation.
I hope that before too long the House might find an opportunity
to consider further this matter and the resolution proposed by
the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, which
would require the Commissioner to seek the agreement of the relevant
Committee of the House before exceptionally instituting such an
inquiry.
1.14 In addition, on 12 March 2012, the House agreed
a motion in respect of the appointment of lay members to a new
Committee on Standards. This followed an inquiry by the Procedure
Committee published in November 2011 into a previous recommendation
from the Committee on Standards in Public Life in November 2009,
[2] [3]
which had been endorsed by the Committee on Standards and Privileges
and then the House in December 2010.[4]The
House agreed to create two separate Committees, one on standards
and one on privileges, with at least two and no more than three
lay members being included on the Committee on Standards. The
House agreed that lay members, who cannot be former Members of
Parliament, will be able to participate fully in evidence taking
and informal consideration of draft reports. While they will not
have full voting rights, any written opinion of a lay member must
be published as part of its report and the Committee on Standards
cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is
present. Lay members could be appointed for the remainder of one
Parliament and reappointed for a period of up to two years in
a new Parliament. Once the new arrangements are in place, my work
will be considered by the Committee on Standards.
1.15 I value this development. I hope that the necessary
appointment procedures for the lay members will result in the
establishment of a Committee on Standards with lay members before
too long. If this were to be before the end of this calendar year
I stand ready to give any assistance necessary to the new Committee
and its lay members in fulfilling their responsibilities.
1.16 In January 2012 I published a consultation paper
on the more detailed Guide to the Rules. The Guide relates principally
to the rules in the Code of Conduct dealing with the registration
and declaration of Members' financial interests and to lobbying.
It provides fuller details about these rules and about the procedure
for complaints. The current Guide is much longer than the Code
itself and, in my view, can be quite difficult to follow. This
is principally because the Guide is the result of a series of
motions and resolutions of the House, plus some interpretation
of these motions and resolutions, which have grown up incrementally
over some 16 years. This is the first time that the opportunity
has arisen to consider the Guide to the Rules as a whole, including
both its structure and content.
1.17 In respect of its structure, I have proposed
in the consultation paper a full redraft of the Guide reducing
its length by 25% and setting out its provisions and the requirements
on Members in what I hope is a clearer and more logical way.
1.18 In respect of the content, I have consulted
on reducing the number of categories under which Members are required
to register their interests, thus I hope simplifying that task,
harmonising some of the financial thresholds for registration
and potentially tightening the rules on lobbying in relation to
both present and past Members. I am now considering the responses
I have received and the issues raised in the consultation paper
before submitting a report on the Guide to the Committee for their
consideration. I expect my work on this to be complete by the
end of this calendar year.
1.19 In addition to the Code and the Guide to the
Rules, the Commissioner has previously published with the Committee's
approval a note on the procedures for complaints and inquiries.
There were seven such notes, mainly for specific recipients such
as the Member, witnesses or the press. Many of them dated back
to 2003 and they needed updating. In the course of the year I
therefore worked on a single procedural note which reflected my
current procedures and which is now available to all interested
parties, as well as the wider public. The new note gives procedural
guidance to anyone involved at each stage of the complaints procedure
enabling them to see where they fit into the overall process.
The Committee approved this new procedural note in April 2012
and I published it on my webpages. It will apply to all inquiries
started after that date.
1.20 There have been two developments in relation
to All-Party Parliamentary Groups. In November 2011 the Registrar
of Members' Financial Interests proposed to the Committee on Standards
and Privileges that those who held House of Commons passes because
of their work on the secretariat of any group should have to register
financial interests in the same way as the staff of Members do.
This was necessary to fill a gap in the registration structure
following a decision by the House authorities to issue passes
to members of any secretariat who were not already part of the
staff of a Member of either House. Further information on this
new requirement is in Chapter 4.
1.21 In November 2011 the Speakers of both Houses
established a cross-House working group to review Parliament's
arrangements for All-Party Groups. The working group was established
to consider the current operation and funding of All Party Groups
and produce some pathfinder recommendations. In a statement published
on 28 November 2011 the Speakers made clear that they wished the
working group to look at the implications of the growing number
of All-Party Groups; the extent to which there is a risk of confusion
with formally constituted Select Committees of both Houses; whether
Groups should be required to publish minutes and accounts; and
the funding of Group activities. I was pleased to have been asked
by the Speakers to be an adviser to that working group. The working
group submitted its Report to the Speakers and it was subsequently
published in June 2012.
1.22 The year saw some changes to the staffing in
my office. In April 2011 the Registrar of Members' Financial Interests,
Ms Alda Barry, moved to other duties in the House. She had been
Registrar for almost 10 years and is widely respected in the House
for her expertise and wise advice. She was succeeded by Ms Heather
Wood, who was the Commissioner's complaints officer. Over the
course of the year, I was able to reduce my own normal working
week from four to three days, although I worked additional days
when the work required it and continued to be available at all
other times.
1.23 In addition to the work on which I have been
centrally engaged and these changes to my office, I have also
been engaged with a number of initiatives and activities undertaken
elsewhere.
1.24 In September 2011 the Independent Parliamentary
Standards Authority and their Compliance Officer agreed their
joint statement on working with the Commissioner. It is a statutory
requirement on IPSA and the Compliance Officer to produce a statement
on how they will work with the Commissioner, the Metropolitan
Police Service and the Crown Prosecution Service. In respect of
the Commissioner, the joint statement says that, where either
IPSA or the Compliance Officer considers that a Member's conduct
justifies it, they shall refer that Member, with the relevant
evidence, to the Commissioner for him or her to decide whether
to inquire into a potential breach of the Code or rules.
1.25 Following the publication of this joint statement,
and with the agreement of the Committee, I published in November
2011 a procedural note setting out my procedures for handling
a referral from either the Independent Parliamentary Standards
Authority or its Compliance Officer. This stated that I would
not consider any such reference until after any avenue of appeal
available to the Member under IPSA's statutory procedures had
been exhausted. It also made clear that I would expect to accept
the outcome of any investigation undertaken by the Compliance
Officer relating to his or her remit and would not, therefore,
expect to reopen the Compliance Officer's investigation or its
final outcome. This note has now been incorporated into the updated
and consolidated procedural note referred to above.
1.26 In September 2011 I provided at his request
written evidence about the work of the Commissioner to Lord Justice
Leveson's inquiry into the culture, practice and ethics of the
press.
1.27 In December 2011 the Government published a
draft bill which would give the public the right to recall their
local Member of Parliament where there was a finding of serious
wrongdoing against the Member. The proposals set out two triggers
for a recall petition. The first would be linked to a Member receiving
a custodial sentence of 12 months or less (a sentence over 12
months already attracts automatic expulsion from the House). The
second would be when the House of Commons resolved, through a
vote, that a recall petition should be opened. The Government
considered that the draft Bill would work alongside the House's
own disciplinary arrangements and that the House could be invited
to agree to a recall petition where the Committee on Standards
and Privileges had found the Member guilty of serious wrongdoing.
1.28 In January 2012, with the Chair, I gave evidence
on these proposals to the Constitutional and Political Reform
Committee which was conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the
Bill. My own view is that the Commissioner should not be required
to determine in his investigation whether the serious wrongdoing
threshold for recall had been met because that would involve him,
in effect, in recommending a sanction on a Member. I would not
welcome an extension of the Commissioner's remit into recommending
what sanction the House might impose as a result of my investigation:
that is too wide a band of responsibility for one person. The
current process properly separates the person who conducts the
investigation from any decision about the penalty. And under the
new provisions of the current Code, of course, the Commissioner
would not be able to engage in any investigation if it involved
only a Member's conduct in their private and personal lives, for
example an offence committed abroad on holiday, since the Code
specifically prevents him from investigating such matters.
1.29
1 Recommendation R1(a) of the Eighth Report of the
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Standards of Conduct in
the House of Commons, Cm 5663, November 2002. Back
2
Procedure Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2010-12 Sixth Report,
HC 1606 Back
3
Committee on Standards in Public Life, Twelfth Report, MPs'
expenses and allowances (Cm 7724, November 2009) Back
4
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Second Report of Session
2009-10, HC 67 Back
| 
