Written evidence from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) (LAN0002)

Background on the Committee

1. The Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) is an independent, non-departmental public body that advises the Prime Minister on the arrangements for upholding standards of conduct across public life in England. The Committee does not have investigative powers or consider individual cases. Please see Annex A for the Committee’s remit.

2. The Committee articulated the Seven Principles of Public Life – commonly referred to as the Nolan Principles – in its first report in 1995: honesty; objectivity; openness; selflessness; integrity; accountability; and leadership. These principles apply to all public office holders, including those who are elected or appointed, and to private providers of public services.

Consultation response

3. CSPL welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We have addressed questions 1 - 4, 6, 7 and 9 of the call for evidence.

Q1. What does the current landscape of bodies and processes regulating MPs (including MPs who are also Ministers) look like to the public?

4. Our 2021 report, Upholding Standards in Public Life, concentrated on the effectiveness of the bodies, rules, policies and processes underpinning ethics regulation in central government.[1]  Our inquiry included the regulation of MPs who are also Ministers but went wider to encompass the Civil Service and public appointments.

5. The evidence we took for Upholding Standards in Public Life was that the general standards landscape is complex and can be confusing to the public, reflecting the piecemeal development of ethics regulation in the UK, where scandal has led to new bodies and mechanisms in some areas, while in others there has been more incremental reform.

6. A research study conducted for Upholding Standards in Public Life found that the system of ethics regulation for MPs and ministers was not seen as easy to understand, and greater clarity was needed in communicating this to the public.[2]

Q2. Whilst the history of the standards system in Parliament and Government is piecemeal, does the system have coherence? Are there obvious anomalies?

7. Some of the complexity in the regulation of MPs is a consequence of the unique and multifaceted nature of their role. An MP’s work has many aspects; in Parliament, they vote and participate in debates and some are members of Select Committees; they carry out constituency work; some have party roles that make demands on their time; and many MPs belonging to the governing party hold ministerial positions.

8. While the range of standards bodies in Parliament and Government may not feel like a coherent whole to the public or, indeed, to MPs themselves, each body plays a part in regulating specific aspects of an MP’s role and the current system has its own logic. Coherence is given by the Nolan principles and by the interaction of the different elements and their willingness to learn from each other.

9. Turning to anomalies, there does seem to be a gap where members of the public have complaints that do not fall within the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and where political parties seem reluctant to take any action. Examples include instances of aggressive behaviour on social media, making misleading statements to Parliament and dealing inadequately with constituency matters. While the regulation of MPs is balanced against our democratic system that protects the public’s right to hold their elected representatives to account through the ballot box, four years can be a long time for a constituent to wait to express their views and, in any case, people vote for a range of different reasons.

10. We noted in Upholding Standards in Public Life that the introduction of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) in Parliament has created a new layer of codes, processes, and regulation for MPs and peers. The greater degree of independence introduced by the ICGS is welcome, and the scheme represents a significant improvement on prior processes. However, as CSPL noted in its contribution to Alison Stanley’s 18-month review, the scheme consists of “a complex web of overlapping bureaucratic structures which have not yet settled into their final form, and ongoing work is needed to refine the finer points of its operation.” We said that any future reforms should focus on simplifying arrangements in both Houses, where possible.[3]

Q3. Is there any scope for simplification or consolidation? What would be the benefits and what would be the risks?

11. Those with expert knowledge of the Parliamentary and Government systems are better placed to give careful consideration to how elements might effectively be rationalised. This should include consideration of how, where there is misalignment between the obligations on Ministers under the Ministerial Code and the obligations on MPs (including those who are also Ministers) under the House of Commons Code, this might be resolved. Formally, changing the codes would require the agreement of the PM in the case of the Ministerial Code and the Commons in the case of the MPs’ Code of Conduct. However, in order to enhance transparency and understanding, a first step could be an analysis of the two codes, drawing out any necessary differences and identifying any scope for harmonisation.

12. It is important for public trust that any proposal to consolidate regulation for MPs should not be at the expense of the independence provided by bodies such as IPSA and the Electoral Commission, which should continue to perform their regulatory functions.

13. We looked at the arguments for and against consolidation of the standards landscape more broadly in Upholding Standards in Public Life. In part to resolve the issue of complexity in government standards regulation, some contributors to that review, including the Labour Party, voiced support for the establishment of a single ethics commission to regulate ethical standards in government.[4]

Q4. How do political party processes and formal regulatory processes interact? Should there be greater consistency in internal party processes?

14. It is obvious that there will always be tension for political parties when standards issues arise. There is a risk of politicisation of standards issues, where complaints are used, by either side, for partisan purposes or political gain. The party in government will frequently be thrown on the defensive and the opposition parties will inevitably be keen to exploit misconduct in government. But there may be more that the parties themselves could and should do to scrutinise potential candidates at all levels and call out bad behaviour when it occurs.

15. In our 2017 report, Intimidation in Public Life, we called for more cross-party collaboration to tackle intimidation. We continue to believe in the merits of advancing inter-party consensus and cooperation.[5]

Q6. Could the role and remit of different bodies be better explained or promoted?

16. There are multiple standards bodies that now exist in Parliament and Government. From the evidence we heard for Upholding Standards in Public Life, it is clear that they each have a necessary role and function in their own particular contexts, but that more can be done to explain and inform the public about who they are and what they do. As we said in our 2018 report, MPs’ Outside Interests, “A clearer understanding of the wide-ranging nature and core principles of an MP’s role and function would be of benefit to both the public and MPs themselves.”[6]

17. There is a need to explain to the public and to stakeholders the importance of standards and also to explain what the rules mean. The difficult question of course is how this can be done in a way that genuinely improves understanding among the public and MPs, drawing attention particularly to the elements of independence built into the system. (We would be very interested to hear any specific suggestions in this area that come out of the evidence taken by the Committee.)

18. Our view is that better explanation of the role and remit of the different standards bodies would have a beneficial impact on public trust in the standards system. However, this alone is insufficient. It is also important that the codes are clear and that enforcement is fair and timely so that where poor conduct occurs, the public sees MPs are sanctioned promptly.

Q7. Could there be an easier way for members of the public to make complaints or raise concerns about conduct, where they are not sure which body has oversight?

19. We do not think the current state of affairs, where it requires a significant amount of analysis to work out where to complain to, is satisfactory. MPs’ varied responsibilities and their unique status means that it can be difficult for the public to both assess their performance and know where to go to make complaints or raise concerns about their conduct. MPs are elected by voters in their constituency; they are not employed by Parliament. They do not have a contract of employment, standardised working hours, or targets for their performance. In addition, there are different rules for Ministers.

20. It is also important for a complainant to know that if they have complained to the wrong place they will be put in touch with the right place without significant delay. There may be an advantage in having a portal where the public can send complaints, which are then triaged and sent to the relevant body. Although this is not something we have explored we would be very interested to hear from the Committee whether in their view or the view of other evidence givers this might effectively be put in place.  In addition, we would encourage the Parliamentary authorities to hold in an accessible place on the UK Parliament website, a clear explanation of what each body is responsible for.

Q9. What can be learned from parallel processes in other parliaments/assemblies within the UK and elsewhere?

21. CSPL has not researched processes in other parliaments/assemblies but would be interested in responses submitted by contributors with relevant expertise or in any comparative studies that the Committee on Standards were to undertake.

19 September 2023

Annex A

Committee on Standards in Public Life

The Committee on Standards in Public Life is an independent, advisory Non-Departmental Public Body (NDPB). The Committee was established in October 1994, by the then Prime Minister, with the following terms of reference:

To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.

The Principles of Selflessness, Objectivity, Integrity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership remain the basis of the ethical standards expected of public office holders and continue as key criteria for assessing the quality of public life.

The remit of the Committee excludes investigation of individual allegations of

misconduct.

On 12 November 1997, the terms of reference were extended by the then Prime Minister:

To review issues in relation to the funding of political parties, and to make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements.

The Committee’s terms of reference were further clarified following the Triennial Review of the Committee in 2013. The then Minister of the Cabinet Office confirmed that the Committee:

Should not inquire into matters relating to the devolved legislatures and Governments except with the agreement of those bodies. Secondly the Government understands the Committee’s remit to examine “standards of conduct of all holders of public office” as encompassing all those involved in the delivery of public services, not solely, those appointed or elected to public office.

Committee membership:

●       Lord Evans of Weardale KCB DL, Chair

●       The Rt Hon Lady Arden of Heswall DBE

●       The Rt Hon Dame Margaret Beckett DBE MP

●       The Rt Hon Ian Blackford MP

●       Ewen Fergusson

●       Baroness Finn

●       Professor Gillian Peele

The Committee’s work is supported by a Research Advisory Board, chaired by Professor

Mark Philp.