Written evidence from the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (LAN0006)

Introduction

1. The House of Commons standards system is complex, consisting of a number of different sets of rules and guidance.  

2. Simplification and clarification of the standards landscape should make it easier for Members to comply with the rules, and for relevant bodies to enforce them fairly and effectively, which should in turn enhance public confidence in Parliament as an institution.  

3. The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (OPCS) therefore strongly supports revision and simplification of the existing body of rules and guidance that implement and supplement the Rules in the Code of Conduct.[1]

4. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is responsible for monitoring the effectiveness of the Code of Conduct, and as part of that he considers the accessibility, clarity and consistency of the relevant rules. The analysis and recommendations in this submission are based on OPCS’s insight (derived from OPCS’s separate advice-giving and complaints and investigations functions) into how Members and their offices interact with the relevant rules.

Principles-based rules

5. OPCS supports a move towards a principles-based approach so far as possible, in line with modern regulatory practice. Putting rules on a principles-based footing should enhance Members’ confidence in compliance, as well as supporting fair and effective enforcement of the rules which is key to public trust in the parliamentary standards system. 

6. Principles-based rules are shorter and easier to understand. They emphasise the personal responsibility of Members for compliance, and provided the principles are set out clearly and simply they should not result in any loss of certainty. Indeed, lengthy and complicated rules that attempt to foresee every eventuality tend to raise as many questions as they answer, and provide less certainty than simple and clear principles.

7. The House of Commons Stationery Rules were re-formulated earlier this year, as a result of a collaboration between the Commissioner, the Clerk of the Journals and the Committee, as a simple set of clear principles;[2] and early experience suggests that the revision has been successful in improving understanding and confidence.

8. OPCS is aware that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is presently moving towards a more principles-based approach in certain areas, and we would encourage the Committee to invite IPSA to provide any early insight from this initiative.

Responsibility

9. The Code makes clear that Members are personally responsible for their adherence to the Code. The administrative functions of some parts of the Code, for example registering interests, are routinely delegated to a Member's staff; but the responsibility for adherence to the Code cannot be delegated.

10. It is therefore axiomatic that the relevant rules must provide reasonable certainty and clarity for Members, and that access to the relevant rule owner(s) for specific advice must be accessible and timely. This is the responsibility of the House Service.

Coherence of the rules

11. As the documents containing rules and guidance have been drafted by different people and at different times, they vary considerably in style and approach. 

12. In some cases the drafting is less clear than could be desired, and OPCS is aware of instances of inconsistent or unclear advice being provided to Members and their staff as a result of ambiguity in the phrasing of particular rules.

13. Some documents containing rules or guidance also suffer from lack of clarity as to their overall purpose: in particular,

• the Rules Register contains several items that solely provide information rather than rules (eg ‘[location of] showers and toilets’); and
• some topics in the Rules Register run to many pages, and contain guidance and other information (eg ‘heritage collections’ and ‘fire safety best practice’) rather than a concise statement of rules enforceable under the Code.

14. Stylistic variations between documents are not necessarily material in themselves; but they are evidence of a system that has not been constructed on a coherent basis around clear and simple articulated principles. Rule owners need to coordinate to enhance the overall coherence and consistency of the regulatory system.

15. (There is also room in the Committee’s inquiry for consideration of the coherence of the wider regulatory regime of and affecting Parliament: in particular, the Commissioner has expressed concern at public confusion created by the divergence between the content and publication processes of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the List of Ministers’ Interests, and is working with the Cabinet Office to support integration and coherence.)

Accessibility of the rules

16. There is some evidence that the simple number of different documents forming the overall regulatory system for the House causes a certain amount of confusion and has an impact on compliance and effective enforcement of the rules. In particular, Members and their staff do not always know where to look for rules or advice on specific matters.

17. Ownership of the relevant rules is dispersed throughout the House of Commons and Parliament, reflecting the number and variety of House Service Teams that provide facilities and services to Members.

18. It is evidently a corporate responsibility and function of the House Service to ensure that the relevant rules are easily accessible, clear, consistent and up to date. Currently, the relevant rules are contained in the Rules Register on the parliamentary intranet, described as a “topical index of Commons rules on access to and use of the Parliamentary Estate, House of Commons and bicameral facilities and Parliamentary digital services”.[3]

19. The Rules Register is overseen by the House of Commons Governance Office, which states that it “works with rule owners to ensure that rules pages continue to be the dedicated source of information for rules, and that the pages are kept up to date when the rules change.”[4]

20. OPCS is aware that the Committee does not have ownership of many of the relevant rules. However, the Committee could helpfully recommend that the House Service review those rules to implement a principles-based approach, using the Committee’s recent achievement with the stationery rules as a guiding example. The Commissioner stands ready to work with the House of Commons Governance Office, as coordinator of the Rules Register, to support the necessary work with rule owners.

21. The revised rules, implementing a principles-based approach, should be made available in a central online repository that the parliamentary community can be confident is accessible, clear and up to date. If the existing Rules Register is retained for that purpose, the Governance Office should ensure that it contains concise and principles-based statements of rules that are enforceable under the Code, rather than (as at present) operating as a general repository that includes general factual information about parliamentary resources and facilities, which should be made available in an appropriate location elsewhere.

Visibility of rule owners

22. Correspondence from Members and Members’ staff to OPCS consistently indicates that Members and their offices may struggle to identify easily the relevant rule owner(s) for their enquiries on the use of facilities and services provided by Parliament.

23. The Registry wherever possible provides substantive responses to enquiries from Members and their offices within five working days, with the majority answered within two working days. A proportion of those enquires do not relate to those parts of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules that are the responsibility of the Registry. Where possible, the Registry redirects those enquiries from and on behalf of Members to the relevant rule owner. However, it can be challenging to identify rule owners; triaging and redirecting enquiries takes time, and does not support consistent standards of response time to Members’ enquiries.

24. OPCS is of the view that the Governance Office is well-placed to review regularly the list of rule owners and their contact details to ensure they are up-to-date, accessible and visible to Members and their offices, and to work with all advice owners to provide Members and their staff with a standard estimated response time to requests for specific advice from rule owners.

The Committee’s call for evidence

25. This response now turns to some of the other matters in the Committee’s call for evidence.

Does the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and other legislation relating to the disqualification of Members, operate satisfactorily? How could it be improved?

26. OPCS strongly supports the need to articulate clear general principles on the basis of which the Committee determines the imposition of sanctions in particular cases.  The Commissioner stands ready to work with the Committee on development of these principles, and agrees that the 2015 Act raises specific issues that should be addressed in that context. 

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

27. The Commissioner regularly meets with representatives of standards systems within and outside of the UK as part of his outreach and engagement work. This work underlines and strengthens the common and shared endeavour to maintain effective standards systems that support public trust in political systems.

28. To that end, this year the Commissioner has met with:

• The Australian Human Rights Commissioner

• Faculty of the Institute of Legal and Constitutional Research, University of St Andrews
• Officials of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
• President of the Senate of Australia on her visit to the UK
• Members of the Ontario Parliament - Ontario Legislative Internship Programme
• Members of the European Parliament Special Committee on Interference and Misinformation
• Committee and members of Public Law Wales, to deliver Annual Lecture
• Committee and members of Public Affairs Cymru
• Standards Commissioner, Clerk and Chair of Standards Committee, and Chief Executive,

Senedd Cymru

• Speakers of the Isles Conference in Ireland, to deliver an address and panel discussion
• Members and Officers of Tynwald
• Westminster Foundation for Democracy - Solomon Islands delegation

29. Those meetings suggest that there is much that different jurisdictions can learn from each other in relation to the establishment and operation of standards regimes, and the Commissioner will be happy to provide examples of shared experience. 

Conclusion

30. Should the Committee require further information on matters relating to this submission, the Commissioner would be happy to assist.

September 2023