Written evidence from Caroline Nottage (LAN0004)

Suggestions for evidence for fitness to practice for MPs

I am an ex IT process, systems and business analyst and IT Quality Manager who retrained as psychotherapist/counsellor in 2009 - as such I believe I understand something about both process and human behaviour.

I appreciate there are bodies which regulate MPs behaviour but it seems to me that there is no appropriate nationally standardised recruitment process, nor any monitoring of how effective MPs are in their work i.e. are they fit to practice?

This may cover, for example:

•         Do they have suitable skills and experience?

•         Do they understand the work and have they done something similar before?

•         Are they actually doing their job, do they demonstrate the required competencies?

•         How do we measure this and what is the process for rectifying any under-performance?

This has been a matter of normal process for decades in most industries and frankly it is somewhat startling to find that a job as important as running the country is not subject to this. Indeed the UK Parliament’s own personnel application process covers similar ground.

I would suspect other countries carry out such checks as a matter of course - What do they do and how can we learn from them?

We have all recently experienced or been made aware of shockingly inappropriate behaviour at all levels of government. Hopefully this is less likely to happen if those who are recruited into the role are more suited to it.

As one of the oldest democracies in the world, do we really want to see a repetition of behaviours which may have jeopardised both our position in, and our influence on, the world stage?

It has been suggested that there is a natural tension between the independence of political parties and their constituency offices, and any nationally implemented monitoring or regulatory process.

Perhaps this is about who is responsible for and carries out these processes?

If the political parties decide upon their candidates, they may then employ a third party such as an HR consultancy or a Civil Service entity to carry out a competency-based recruitment process, which would include vetting and some sort of psychometric testing.

In this scenario the political party remains in control of who is put forward as an MP candidate for their area. If the proposed candidate fails any of these proposed national level processes - what responsible political party would still want to put them forward?

On an ongoing basis who should regulate this?

One idea would be for the Standards Commission to require certification for each MP say once a parliament. They may then they can carry out random unannounced checks on an ad hoc basis to validate that due process has been followed and the randomly selected MP has passed all the necessary hurdles. This does not have to be a huge exercise, the key is secrecy and a totally random choice of those to be validated. There should be no warning and no collaboration between MPs and whoever does the validation, otherwise its a waste of time and of tax payers money.

Do MPs have any sort of “clinical” or “technical” supervisor? This is not about day to day management but about issues regarding actually doing the work, ethical issues, what difficulties they encounter etc usually discussed with someone more experienced that themselves. I don't think we are talking about the whips here.

Are there any support groups for MPs in the same type of role or of the same level of experience? I appreciate this could only be single party groups but nevertheless could prove very helpful and save reinventing the wheel.

I would suggest all existing MPs be subject to whatever process is implemented.

We need to be sure there is not a massive additional administrative and financial burden on the political parties as, whilst this may be of no concern to the larger ones, we still need space for our smaller parties and don't want to see them priced out of the opportunity.

September 2023