Review of the Code of Conduct

1.1 The review of the Code has been a major priority during the past year. Following an extensive process of consultation, the Committee on Standards and Privileges was able to submit to the House on 17 March 2005 proposals for a revised Code which will, I believe, give the Code greater prominence and clarity as well as strengthening it along lines previously recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.[3]

1.2 In its Eighth Report published in November 2002, that Committee had recommended that in each Parliament the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should initiate a review of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules. This recommendation was accepted by the House in a debate on 26 June 2003.

1.3 The House had agreed substantial changes to the Guide to the Rules on 14 May 2002. In 2004, I proposed initiating a review of the Code in line with the recommendation previously mentioned. The Committee on Standards and Privileges accepted this proposal and in July 2004 I published a consultation paper setting out the key issues for discussion. Copies of the consultation paper were sent under cover of a personal letter to all Members of the House and to 24 organisations and individuals both outside and inside the House known to have a particular interest in these matters. Publication of the consultation paper was also made known through a press release and the text was posted on the parliamentary web-site with a general invitation to the public to comment.

1.4 The 27 responses received did not reveal widespread dissatisfaction with the Code but there were a number of helpful suggestions for change and improvement. In February 2005 I submitted to the Committee on Standards and Privileges proposals for a substantial re-casting and re-presentation of the Code intended to make it more useful to both the public and Members. The main proposed changes in the Code's substance were designed to:

·  Widen the statement of its purpose.

·  Make clear that it is complementary to the obligations which apply to all Members by virtue of the procedural and other rules of the House and the rulings of the Chair, and to some Members by virtue of the Ministerial Code.

·  Add provisions - as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life - emphasising Members' duty to cooperate with an investigation by the Commissioner and to refrain from lobbying members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges about cases.

·  Bring complaints about the misuse of facilities provided to Members for parliamentary purposes within the scope of the Code, as misuse of parliamentary allowances already is.

I also recommended changes intended to achieve a more uniform and proportionate handling of inquiries into evidence of possible misuse. Finally I proposed that Mr Speaker might be given discretion to refer any serious breach of the House's rules falling outside the Code to the Commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges for investigation and adjudication, if he thought this would be in the best interests of the House. The intention would be to enable the procedures and safeguards for Members that are inherent in the complaints investigation process to be used in such circumstances.

1.5 In its Fourth Report of Session 2004-05, the Committee on Standards and Privileges noted that the responses to the consultation paper suggested that the Code continued to achieve the objectives for which it was first created. It advised the House to accept all the changes to the Code I had recommended. In one important respect, the Committee went beyond my own proposals by proposing the addition to the Code of an explicit commitment to equality. Noting that such provisions are commonly included in professional codes of practice, the Committee recommended that there be added to the principle already included in the Code about the public duty of Members to uphold the law, a specific reference to the general law against discrimination.

1.6 The Committee also recommended procedural changes designed to ensure a level playing field in the handling of instances of misuse, whether these emerge through complaints or are uncovered by Departments of the House. If these changes are accepted in principle by the House, the Committee envisages submitting detailed guidelines for its approval before they are implemented.

1.7 Finally the Committee recommended that, if the House was unable to consider its proposals prior to the Dissolution of Parliament, they be considered within three months of the meeting of the new Parliament.

1.8 I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the review of the Code and hope that the House will recognise the proposals now before it to be a useful means of strengthening both Member and public confidence in its standards arrangements.

Review of training strategy

1.9 In my last annual report, I mentioned (paragraph 1.8) that I had begun a review of the advice and briefing offered to Members on standards matters. This reflected both the wish of the Committee on Standards and Privileges that greater emphasis be put on the prevention of problems and the recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that:

"The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should periodically review, in conjunction with the House authorities and the Whips, the effectiveness of the provision for training and guidance on standards of conduct."

"We recommend that the Commissioner considers in conjunction with the House authorities and the Whips, whether anything more is needed to ensure that comprehensive training and guidance are provided on standards, especially if different aspects of the training are to be provided by different authorities. For example, closer links between the training given by the Fees Office and the Commissioner may be beneficial, given that strict observance of the rules for payments and allowances is a requirement of the Code of Conduct." [4]

1.11 After consulting parties in the House and the House authorities, I proposed to the Committee on Standards and Privileges the introduction of a comprehensive briefing strategy which would include:

a)  Induction of new Members after a General Election. Plans have been drawn up for briefing new and returning Members after the 2005 General Election (held just outside the time period covered by this report) which include:

·  Sessions by the Commissioner and Registrar on standards issues at the induction briefings arranged by all three main political parties;

·  Short modules on the House's standards arrangements within wider induction seminars being arranged by the House authorities;

·  Separate, more detailed briefings on standards related matters, to be undertaken in conjunction with representatives of the House's Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of the Serjeant at Arms.

b)  Returning Members will be alerted to the detailed standards briefings and reminded of the availability of individual advice on their personal circumstances.

c)  Induction of new Members after a by-election. This includes provision for a personal briefing by the Registrar or me.

d)  Occasional attendance by invitation at back-bench party meetings to talk about standards matters. An example of this involved the Registrar and me attending these meetings some months prior to the 2005 General Election to remind Members of the House's rules on the registration of political sponsorship and donations.

The Committee endorsed these proposals and they have been put into effect over the last year.

1.12 These briefing arrangements are supplemented both by the general written advice material now issued to all Members and by advice given to individual Members on request.

1.13 Members are responsible for meeting their obligations under the Code and Rules, and nothing should be done which might undermine the personal responsibility falling on each Member. In practice, however, it has to be recognised that busy Members are frequently assisted in these matters by their staff. With this in mind, the Registrar, Assistant Registrar and I piloted in the early part of 2005 a briefing for Members' staff, both about the obligations falling on them to register their own interests and the obligations in respect of standards falling on the Members whom they serve. In the light of a generally positive response from those present at this innovation, this pilot is to be repeated early in the new Parliament.

1.14 In respect of both Members and their staff, the advice and briefing provided should seek to be both effective and proportionate - to the need and to the importance of the issues; in the demands it makes on Members and their staff; and to the resources available in my office and elsewhere in the House. With this in mind we shall review our experience of the induction process at the start of the 2005 Parliament and I will refer to this in my next report. The principal objectives we shall continue to have in mind will be to ensure that Members (and Members' staff) are alert to the expectations of them in relation to standards matters and to possible pitfalls; are pointed towards authoritative sources of advice and help; and are thereby assisted in fostering a culture of compliance with the requirements of the House.

Attitudes to Standards in Public Life

1.15 In September 2004 the Committee on Standards in Public Life published the results of three years research on this subject. The research was the first of its kind, exploring public attitudes, expectations and perceptions of the behaviour of those in public life. It valuably complemented work done by other bodies - such as the Electoral Commission and the Hansard Society - on public perceptions of the body politic. The Committee intends to repeat the research at regular intervals, thereby enabling the development of public attitudes to be tracked. This will prove valuable for all concerned with standards of conduct in public life and I congratulate the Committee on its initiative.

1.16 The survey revealed that the public hold comprehensive and sophisticated, but sometimes apparently contradictory views on standards issues. A number of the findings were encouraging. Few of those surveyed thought that MPs take bribes or base their decisions on self interest. Only 11% rated standards in public life as low or very low. The focus of public concern appears to have shifted from 'sleaze' to 'spin' - which perhaps is some indication that the efforts of successive Committees on Standards and Privileges and Commissioners to bear down on 'sleaze' ('spin' is not within our remit) are having some effect. The survey also confirms the powerful role of the media in influencing public attitudes on these issues - though it found that journalists on tabloid newspapers rank well below MPs in the list of those who the public trust.

1.17 As to levels of trust in politicians, the survey confirmed the finding of other research that members of the public tend to draw a clear distinction between their local MP (whom they may know) and MPs in general. Asked whether they generally trusted their local MP to tell the truth, 47% of those surveyed said yes, 45% said no, a net trust rating of +2%. Asked the same question in relation to MPs in general, the figures were 27% and 67%, a net trust rating of - 40%. I wonder whether part of what is at work here is the general human tendency to stereotype people as a group, while frequently making exceptions of those we know within that group.

1.18 That said, even a net trust rating of +2% (which incidentally was about the same as that reported for television news journalists) is hardly stunning. There is clearly more work to be done if public confidence in MPs is to be improved. Part of the answer, the research suggests, may lie in informing the public more about what is done to uphold standards. The information given in successive editions of this report may, over time, help here in a modest way. Taken as a whole, however, the findings suggest that a complex of factors is at work in shaping public attitudes and that politicians, the media and those who regulate conduct all have a part to play in building greater confidence between the public and those active in public life. As trust is a quality of a two way relationship, the public also have a responsibility to try to understand the nature of politics and to avoid descending into mere stereotyping and caricature when discussing these vital issues.

The Draft Corruption Bill and the handling of complaints involving allegations of criminal conduct

1.19 I mentioned last year the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Corruption Bill and my intention to agree with the Committee on Standards and Privileges procedures for handling complaints involving allegations of criminal conduct.[5] So far the Government has not introduced the Bill, nor did it indicate its intention to do so in the Queen's Speech at the start of the present Parliament.

1.20 It would be preferable to draw up agreed procedures for handling complaints involving allegations of criminal conduct once the terms of the legislation are known. In the meantime, should the issue arise, I intend to follow the approach sketched out by the Committee and described in paragraph 1.13 of my last report.

Members' Allowances

1.21 On 21 October 2004, the House published information about each Member's spending on parliamentary expenses and allowances. This put material about all Members' expenditure in the public domain for the first time, anticipating by a few months the position under the Freedom of Information Act.

1.22 The publication of the material attracted widespread media attention. Some comment mistakenly added together Members' salary and allowances, treating them both as part of earnings. In fact allowances are not, of course, earnings but are provided to Members to meet expenditure wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred by them in carrying out their parliamentary duties, including the costs of the staff they employ to that end.

1.23 I welcome publication of this information. Inevitably there is scope for misunderstanding, and the task of explaining the figures can prove irksome for some Members. Nevertheless it is right that the public should know how the substantial sums now involved are being spent. The House should take some credit for this positive development.

4   Committee on Standards in Public Life, Eighth Report, Cm 5663 Back

5   HC 705, Session 2002-03  Back