7 Wider Leadership
Leadership: taking standards
seriously
183. Leadership is important for the enforcement
and reinforcement of ethical standards. As Richard Thomas reminded
the Committee, "Leadership is one of the seven Nolan principles
and, in some ways, the most important because, without that, nothing
happens."[165]
Having considered the House of Commons system for propagating
and maintaining high standards, we conclude that with some adjustments
it is fit for purpose. As our witnesses made clear, however, compliance
through fear is no substitute for a cultural acceptance that MPs
must exemplify high standards. Andrew Lansley said:
We are building on a culture of greater compliance
and we now need to build a culture of positive understanding of
the Nolan principles. That is beyond compliance. Openness, selflessness,
objectivity and leadership are issues that go beyond the culture
of compliance.[166]
184. The Commissioner wrote:
I do not think it is over-stating the case to
say that moving from a culture of compliance with detailed rules
to one of more active engagement with ethical issues and principles
is fundamental if the objective is to increase public belief in
the ethical standards operating in this sphere of public life.
This is far easier said than done.[167]
Achieving high standards
185. The achievement and maintenance of that cultural
acceptance cannot be attained through rules, codes, and procedures
alone: it requires leadership from all corners of the House of
Commons. While the House has a responsibility, as an institution,
to provide leadership, however, the structure of leadership is,
as Angela Eagle reminded the Committee, "a very diffuse structure;
it is not a top-down, hierarchical structure … there are
lots of accountabilities, and the electorate's decision is final,
in my view".[168]
We explore these sources of ethical leadership here.
186. The UK political system is still largely based
on party allegiance. Political parties are important for preparing
candidates for political life long before they become MPs. Ideally,
an introduction into the standards required of MPs should begin
even before someone becomes a candidate. With a few exceptions,
candidates are selected by their parties. Even though political
parties cannot hope to replicate the lengthy acculturation and
formal training required of candidates for the professions, induction
into the requirements of the Code of Conduct for MPs should begin
at this stage, and we were pleased to learn that such education
does indeed form part of the selection process. Andrew Lansley
made the point that the party whips have a role in the education
of candidates.[169]
David Howarth, for example, who was an MP and is now a member
of the Electoral Commission, in itself part of the 'standards
ecosystem', told us that "parties have every incentive to
select candidates of the highest integrity, because if you do
not you end up being punished." [170]
Indeed, given that the Electoral Commission is part of the standards
ecosystem, it is important that candidates become ethically aware
long before they become MPs. The Electoral Commission issues guidance
to candidates and elected MPs. We consider the Commission should
include links to the House of Commons Code and Guide in its guidance
to candidates and welcome its willingness to do so.
187. The party whips also have a clear role in supporting
their MPs. Peter Riddell's view was that Whips, who have an overt
disciplinary function, should combine this with exercising leadership
on ethical standards questions: "The party Whips should have
a role of reminding their flocks what the rules are and what they
should not do."[171]
Therefore, "guidance can be given and reinforced by the party
Whips. People go to the Registrar to clear things up."[172]
Angela Eagle also stressed the role of parties and whips: "in
the Labour party's case the national executive committee and the
standing orders of the parliamentary Labour party are all sources
of potential disciplinary conflict if behaviour gets out of line
with what is expected", adding that the role of the whips
"is not all about imposing party discipline and forcing people
to vote the way the political party in question has decided to
vote"—it extends to any rule-breaking or conduct that
might bring the party into disrepute: in such cases, the Labour
Party "have a system of administrative suspension, which
the General Secretary would announce, pending review of what had
happened".[173]
188. Traditionally, also, the whips have a pastoral
role, but there was some criticism of how it was exercised. Laura
Sandys said:
There should be much more of an early warning
system. That is not about candidates—it is about MPs. With
candidates, too, Labour headquarters and Conservative central
office should have an understanding that they are putting people,
particularly first-time MPs or first-time candidates, in an unusual
position. It is not a position that is natural to most people.
For the reputation of the party as much as for the individual,
there might be a little more of a role on the pastoral side—and
just watching. I can tell you which people are on the edge at
the moment, but I am not sure sometimes that the wider organisation
is identifying that. [174]
James Arbuthnot, a former Chief Whip, agreed with
Laura Sandys: "That really should be the role of the Whips."[175]
189. The Party Whips are also well-placed to link
the standards of behaviour expected from MPs with the need, which
we have articulated above, for these standards to be inculcated
upon prospective MPs.[176]
190. Party leaders are a key influencer of MPs' attitudes
and behaviours. Notwithstanding the diffuse sources of authority
in the House, Ruth Fox's view was that party leaders are an essential
source of ethical leadership for MPs:
Ultimately, the source of authority for most
MPs comes right down from the top, and that is party leaders.
Until they take it more seriously and engage with the detail,
I do not think we can expect everyone else to follow.[177]
Party Leaders can reinforce standards by encouraging
their parties to adopt their own rules for the conduct of MPs.
191. The risk, however, in looking to party leaders
and whips for leadership on standards matters is their focus on
electoral advantage. As James Arbuthnot said:
That was what happened over the expenses system.
Everybody was trying desperately—at least the party leaders
were—to put themselves in a better position to win the next
election, rather than trying to sort out an issue with the behaviour
of MPs. That did not go down well with Members of any party. It
did not go down particularly well with the electorate either.[178]
192. By dint of their job titles, the Leader and
Shadow Leader of the House can be expected to have a role
in standards-setting across the parties. In evidence they were
clear that, though they were sources of leadership "we are
not the definitive source of leadership in this area".[179]
Andrew Lansley said:
I see the role of Leader of the House—there
are many sources of leadership in the House, but this is mine
in particular—as being about enabling the House and facilitating
the process by which the House can itself give expression to these
principles. [180]
Angela Eagle's view was:
I certainly do not regard myself as some sort
of shadow CEO of the House with the kind of executive responsibility
that you would accept in a company. The House is a much more diffuse
organisation, and there are many points of moral authority and
power in the House. With all due respect to Andrew, I certainly
would not say that they emanate from him or me. We do our best
in the context we are in, but we are in multiple contexts.
I have my own role with colleagues in emphasising
that they ought to take cognisance of these things and go to the
appropriate induction events, and all of that, and in talks in
general that they should take it seriously. I think they would
have to be quite blind to what has been going on in the last few
years not to take it seriously.[181]
193. The Committee on Standards itself could become
a key player in promoting ethical conduct through explaining the
nature and consequences of unacceptable conduct, and through the
engagement of MPs as a preventative measure, as Andrew Lansley
argued:
It seems to me, on the face of it, that the House
looks to the Standards Committee to be a source of that kind of
impetus. It might be that you would think in terms of the Standards
Committee not only imparting a view about what standards are expected,
and about what the consequences would be where people fall down
on that in individual cases, but about a continuous process of
engagement with Members of the House in terms of what standards
are expected, to avoid having cases that illustrate it by virtue
of breaches.[182]
We support the idea that, in the next Parliament,
the Committee on Standards should develop its voice as a promoter
of ethical conduct by MPs, and recommend that it should draw on
examples from the professions and other legislatures in doing
so.
194. Individual MPs are important as role models
for their colleagues. Greg Power commented that:
politicians—this is true everywhere—learn
how to be politicians by watching what other politicians do. It
is often the culture, the precedent and the practice that shape
how Members of Parliament will behave. That is true everywhere,
and especially so here where the tradition is so strong. There
is a very strong parliamentary culture about what is wrong and
what is right, and I think there is a general acceptance about
that, which is a real strength of the system.[183]
Angela Eagle told us that the Labour Party provides
"a sort of buddy system, so that you have somebody who has
got experience of being in here to give advice and support to
new people who come in."[184]
It is not just a question of senior MPs mentoring those who are
newly-elected. We believe that the one-third of MPs elected in
2010, who are less-entrenched in the old ways of doing things
in Parliament, who may have come from a background where they
have previously been subjected to a formal Code or to the need
for regulatory compliance, and all of whom have had the advantage
of having seen the expenses scandal from the outside, have a role
to play in changing the culture of the House. We believe that
there is a role for senior backbenchers to guide their fellow
MPs in good conduct, but also for more recently-elected MPs to
bring their perspectives for the benefit of longer-standing MPs.
195. However strong the ethical culture of the House,
there will be disputes about standards, either in general terms,
or in particular cases. While we support the idea that the Committee
on Standards might take the lead that Andrew Lansley thought appropriate,
it is the House as a whole which sets the rules and decides the
system. The House, as a whole, needs to support the system. The
House also needs to support the Committee given the responsibility
for implementing that system. All too often, it fails in this.
The party leaderships have a particular responsibility here. They
do not have to comment on individual cases dealt with by the Committee,
but it is their responsibility to understand the framework which
the House has put in place, and to explain and support actively
the rationale for that framework. If they consider change is necessary,
they should explain why in dispassionate terms. They should not
give way to the temptation to exploit short term controversies
on particular cases for political advantage.
Formal induction
196. There was general acceptance of the importance
of proper formal induction for MPs about the standards of conduct
expected of them. Andrew Lansley said "I think that [cultural
acceptance] comes from a proper induction process, early in a
Parliament".[185]
The House provides formal induction for new MPs, but the difficulty
has been getting them to take advantage of it at a time when they
are being bombarded with new experiences. As Laura Sandys put
it:
It is interesting how inductions are done. In
companies they would stagger them so that you would end up with
a six-month period. What we had, which I know was extremely good,
was all in the first week. You cannot absorb anything [186]
Melanie Sully told us that "You've got to get
MPs to see. They have to get something out of it".[187]
Greg Power concurred: "MPs have to believe that there is
a need for some sort of restriction, and that it is going to solve
a problem. They have to agree that there is a problem in the first
place, and that this is a potential solution to it."[188]
He elaborated on the appropriate context of ethics induction:
In order for a code of ethics and training to
work, there has to be a perception that there is a potential problem
that MPs need to respond to and that this is a way of resolving
it. When you look at the option of training or courses, most Members
of Parliament, like most people in any profession, will ask, 'How
is this going to help me do my job better? It must be pitched
to Members of Parliament in a way that says to them, 'This is
going to help you in doing constituency work, in working in Parliament
and in shaping your voters' expectations of you.' That is all
part of a code of ethics and conduct.[189]
197. In the light of its experience from 2009/10,
the House is making some steps in the right direction. The induction
planned for the new Parliament will be very focused. We were pleased
to learn that although this initial process will be reduced to
four elements, one of those will be a session on standards, in
which former members of the Committee on Standards, including
its lay members, will be invited to participate. The Committee
on Standards in Public Life goes further in recommending that,
to ensure that induction has the desired impact, induction on
standards issues should be part of a wider integrated programme
of continuing professional development for MPs.[190]
We note that, with 35 per cent of all MPs being new to the House
of Commons in 2010, the lack of attendance at these induction
sessions was a missed opportunity to help more than one third
of MPs gain full awareness, early on, of the standards system.
We support the attempts being made to improve the effectiveness
of MPs' induction in 2015.
198. Another way in which the House as a whole could
exercise leadership is to consider whether any sanctions (such
as withholding allowances or limiting access to facilities) should
apply to MPs who have not attended standards training, or otherwise
that such lack of attendance at training should be counted against
any MP who is later found to have breached the Code of Conduct.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life has noted that it is
"increasingly difficult" for MPs to justify opting out
of induction sessions, not least as MPs legislate on the standards
required from members of other bodies.[191]
Some of our witnesses discussed the question of making training
strictly required; but whilst compulsion can compel attendance,
true engagement with the issues comes only if the sessions are
themselves compelling. As Angela Eagle told us, the better route
is to make induction ethical standards "literally unmissable".[192]
Education for MPs on ethical standards should be convenient, compelling,
and continuous.
Facilitating the work of the
Committee
199. The House as a whole could assist the Committee
to take a more leading role is to facilitate MPs' attendance at
its meetings. We note that the lay members commented in their
first-year report on the difficulties experienced by MPs in finding
the time to attend committee meetings. We appreciate the demands
on MPs' time, but believe that it would enhance the House's reputation
for taking standards matters seriously if the party leaderships
accepted their responsibility for ensuring that the Committee
could run smoothly, by, for example, ensuring that MP Members
of the Committee on Standards were not required to attend General
Committees when the Committee on Standards was meeting. Similarly,
we hope the Speaker would make allowances, despite the convention
of the House that an MP who has not been present from the beginning
of a debate is less likely to be called to speak, for MPs detained
by a meeting of the Committee on Standards.[193]
200. One way in which the House as a whole can show
that it takes standards seriously is to debate the Committee's
reports in a timely way. By convention, reports on the Conduct
of MPs are debated without delay, but the same cannot be said
of wider reports, of which, if our suggestions about our successor
Committee are adopted, there will be more in future. We particularly
deplore the failure of the business managers to timetable a debate
on the Committee's Third Report of Session 2012-13, recommending
changes to the Code and Guide,[194]
and the related Third Report of the current session.[195]
We note that Government Departments are expected to respond
to the Reports of Departmental Select Committees within two months
and recommend that a variant of the same principle—that
is, that a debate be scheduled within two sitting months of publication—to
allow the House to respond within two months, be adopted in respect
of Reports from the Committee on Standards.
In conclusion
- Whatever the debate outside the House, systems
are only as good as the people who operate them, and who operate
within them. We note that leadership in the House in every respect
is diffused, and that ethical leadership is no exception to this.
That diffusion, however, must become a strength rather than a
weakness, and if each source of leadership supports the standards
system appropriately it will be strengthened immeasurably.
In the end, it is the responsibility of each and every MP,
whatever his or her role in the House, to assume personal responsibility
for his or her own good conduct as an MP and also for the good
name of the House of Commons as an institution. Public confidence
will grow only when this is so.
165 Q39 Back
166
Q46 Back
167
Ccs0023 Back
168
Q45 Back
169
Q47 Back
170
Q155 Back
171
Q12 Back
172
Q16 Back
173
Q47 Back
174
Q155 Back
175
Q155 Back
176
Q47 Back
177
Q86 Back
178
Q149 Back
179
Q46 Back
180
Q45 Back
181
Q45 Back
182
Q47 Back
183
Q75 Back
184
Q47 Back
185
Q46 Back
186
Q153 Back
187
Q70 Back
188
Q70 Back
189
Q96 Back
190
CSPL, 'Ethics in practice' - a report by the Committee on Standards
in Public Life (2014), para 3.13. Back
191
CSPL Ethics in Practice (2014), para 2.43. Back
192
Q48 Back
193
An MP who has not been present for the whole of a debate is less
likely to be called to speak than one who has. Back
194
Standards and Privileges Committee, Third Report of Session 2012-13,
Proposed revision of the Guide to the Rules relating to the
Conduct of Members, HC 636 Back
195
Committee on Standards Third Report of Session 2014-15, The
Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, HC772. Back
|
