Written evidence from Full Fact (LAN0008)

About Full Fact

1. Full Fact fights bad information. We’re a team of independent fact checkers, technologists, researchers, and policy specialists who find, expose and counter the harm it does.
2. Bad information damages public debate, risks public health, and erodes public trust. So we tackle it in four ways. We check claims made by politicians, public institutions, in the media and online and we ask people to correct the record where possible to reduce the spread of specific claims. We campaign for systems changes to help make bad information rarer and less harmful, and we advocate for higher standards.
3. Full Fact is a registered charity. We're funded by individual donations, charitable trusts, and by other funders. We receive funding from both Facebook and Google. Details of our funding can be found on our website.[1]

Summary

4. Full Fact welcomes the Committee on Standards inquiry on the House of Commons Standards Landscape. In our submission we raise our concerns on the lack of coherence across standards bodies in Parliament that leaves a lack of mechanisms to hold MPs to account when they make false or misleading claims both inside and outside of Parliament. As set out, this is extremely concerning when it is a Minister who is refusing to correct a mistake, and is thus breaching the Ministerial Code. We also highlight public concern around honesty and accountability in public life by MPs.

5. Full Fact is calling on the Committee on Standards to make the following recommendations:
1. to introduce a new streamlined process to tackle MPs and Ministers who make consistent or egregious misleading claims and refuse to correct them, and ensure they are effectively held to account.
2. to work closely with the Prime Minister to consider new mechanisms to ensure that the Ministerial Code of Conduct is more stringently enforced, including when Ministers fail to correct their mistakes in Parliament.
3. to commit to a future inquiry on how to address MPs who make false or misleading claims outside of Parliament, and what role the Parliamentary Commissioner should have within this.
4. for the House Service to develop in-depth training on standards that should be delivered to all MPs within six months of a general election and for new MPs within six months of their election.

Mistakes or misleading claims made by MPs in Parliament

6. In 2022 Full Fact gave written[2] and oral[3] evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on Correcting the Record setting out the concerns we have with the way the majority of MPs are unable to correct the official record when they make mistakes in spoken contributions in Parliament.
7. At Full Fact we know from experience that MPs are more honest than prevailing overall perceptions, but the actions of a few are damaging the reputations of all MPs. Because of this we were pleased to see the Government agree to table a motion[4] on the Procedure Committee’s recommendations to extend the Ministerial corrections process to all MPs and to increase the visibility of corrections on Hansard.[5] We believe this will improve honesty in the House of Commons, reduce errors on the official record and be a balanced, impartial, and non-partisan process.
8. However, the issue of MPs being unable to correct mistakes when they occur is only part of the problem of a lack of honesty that is affecting the House of Commons. In our evidence to the Procedure Committee, we also highlighted the lack of clear process for MPs to be held accountable when they fail to correct their mistakes.

9. In its response to Full Fact’s concerns about this the Procedure Committee pointed to the Committee on Standards inquiry on the House of Commons standards landscape as a way to address Full Fact’s concerns.[6]

House of Commons standards bodies do not hold MPs to account

10. Currently there is a lack of coherence, oversight and responsibility across the House of Commons standards bodies to ensure MPs correct mistakes they make in Parliament, and that they are held accountable if they refuse to do so.

11. Opposition party leaders have previously highlighted the lack of suitable mechanisms to challenge MPs that have deliberately misled Parliament and refuse to retract their statements.[7] And as former Chair of the Committee on Standards, Chris Bryant MP, sets out in his book, Code of Conduct: Why we need to fix Parliament, we urgently need a simpler, speedier means of sanctioning those who mislead the House.[8]

12. If an MP wants to challenge a fellow MP on a mistake they have made in a spoken contribution in the Commons, there are numerous ways they can attempt to use current Parliamentary rules to try to do this: through the tabling of Parliamentary Written Questions, Opposition Day Debates, Early Day Motion, Censure Motions or Privilege Motions.[9] [10]

13. But as set out in Full Fact’s written evidence to the Procedure Committee[11], these mechanisms are convoluted, they are not applied consistently and are nearly always unsuccessful in securing a correction. As Principal Clerk of the Table Office at the House of Commons pointed out in his oral evidence to the Procedure Committee, it would take “very experienced and very tenacious Members” to use most of them.[12]

14. In response to Full Fact raising these concerns to the Procedure Committee inquiry, that Committee responded by saying that they “believe that existing procedural mechanisms to challenge the accuracy of contributions made in the House are sufficient. We do not believe the introduction of new procedural mechanisms to be necessary and instead encourage Members to take advantage of existing mechanisms available to them”.[13]

15. We do not think this is good enough. In an attempt to find a solution to this problem, Full Fact had also proposed to the Procedure Committee a new system to address the gap in the House of Common standards landscape whereby no body has direct responsibility for tackling uncorrected claims by MPs. It includes giving the Speaker an enhanced role in this process (more details can be found in paragraph 44). However, the Procedure Committee did not believe it was “necessary to make the Speaker, or any other figure, a referee in this process as there are clear mechanisms for challenge already available”. And that “it is also the case that some disputes regarding accuracy are often more concerned with what should or should not have been included in a measure, or a difference of opinion”.[14]

16. While it may be true that some disputes are a matter of opinion, that should not be a reason to leave this gap in the standards and oversight of our elected representatives. That the House of Commons does not already have a system to tackle consistent or egregious failures by MPs to correct their mistakes must be remedied.

Ministers are not held to account for breaching the Ministerial Code of Conduct

17. This gap in holding MPs to account for failing to correct their mistakes is particularly problematic when it concerns a Government Minister.

18. The Ministerial Code of Conduct sets out that Ministers are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life, which includes a commitment to Honesty[15], and that “it is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. And that when there are any breaches of the Code, including where Ministers knowingly mislead Parliament and fail to correct any errors or misleading claims in parliament, Ministers should offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.”[16] The commitment of Ministers to Parliament is further established in the House’s 1997 resolution on ministerial accountability.[17]

19. Both The Rt Hon Stephen Timms MP[18] and Caroline Lucas MP[19] have raised their concerns in evidence to the Procedure Committee of their lack of success in using Parliamentary mechanisms to challenge the honesty of Ministers in Parliament.

20. Mr Timms’ example is one Full Fact has highlighted previously, whereby the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson MP made inaccurate statements that employment is going up when it is going down to the House of Commons on numerous occasions throughout 2021 to 2022.[20] These mistakes remain uncorrected to this day, despite the efforts of Full Fact, the UK Statistics Authority, the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Liaison Committee.

21. Recently MPs have also struggled to obtain a correction from the Home Secretary The Rt Hon Suella Braverman MP, on her claim in Parliament on 5 June 2023 that “the asylum initial decision backlog is down by 17,000”. This is not correct in terms of the total number of asylum cases awaiting an initial decision.[21] The Home Secretary has been asked to correct the record in line with the Ministerial Code multiple times by many MPs, including the Shadow Home Secretary, The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP[22], the former Shadow Leader of the House, Thangam Debbonaire MP[23], as well as the Home Affairs Select Committee.[24] Although Ms Braverman now accepts that the 17,000 figure refers to the backlog of initial decisions relating to asylum applications made before 28 June 2022[25], this was not made clear when she spoke in Parliament on 5 June and the original statement remains uncorrected.

22. The Government has claimed that it enforces standards, however, at Full Fact we find that many Ministers and their Departments are unwilling to engage with correcting the record, and that the process is insufficiently used. Ministers are not being sanctioned for breaching their Code of Conduct and procedural mechanisms across different standards bodies in the House of Commons for MPs to challenge such mistakes are insufficient and often unsuccessful, despite the best efforts of MPs to use current parliamentary mechanisms to do so.

23. This brings the House into disrepute, with the public spectacle of MPs being thrown out of the House of Commons for challenging inaccuracy[26] - whether fairly or unfairly. It is bad for the Government, and leaves Ministers looking dishonest, exposed to accusations that they have misled the House even when those accusations are wrong. It leaves the Speaker looking complicit and MPs looking foolish and impotent, dragging out disputed cases and promoting cynicism that affects the whole House.

24. The House of Commons must remedy this gap in standards for Ministers so that the Ministerial Code of Conduct is more stringently enforced to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and honesty of Government Ministers in Parliament are met.

Political party processes for holding their MPs accountable

25. Additionally, whilst it is largely not within Full Fact’s purview to comment on individual political party processes for how they sanction or tackle poor behaviour amongst their MPs, it is notable that there are instances where MPs are sanctioned and suspended from their party for making egregious or false claims in Parliament before any action has been taken by Parliament.

26. For example, the Conservative Party took swift action against Andrew Bridgen MP after he compared Covid-19 vaccines to the Holocaust.[27] The Conservative Chief Whip stated that: “Misinformation about the vaccine causes harm and costs lives. I am therefore removing the whip from Andrew Bridgen with immediate effect, pending a formal investigation”. This followed multiple other false claims in Parliament on the Covid-19 vaccine and Government response by the MP.[28]

27. At Full Fact we know that honesty is about more than just looking at your own behaviour and correcting incorrect statements. If political parties can act quickly to hold their MPs to account for behaviour that does not meet their standards, then so can the House of Commons. A truly honest and accountable Parliament would have better mechanisms to hold MPs to account when they do not correct their mistakes, and for Ministers when they do not follow the Ministerial Code.

Mistakes made by MPs outside of the House of Commons

28. When MPs make a contribution or engage in a debate outside of Parliament in a public forum, whether that is on social media, on their MP websites, in newspaper articles, or on television or radio interviews, they are doing so in their capacity as public representatives.

29. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is responsible for monitoring the operation of the House of Commons Members’ Code of Conduct, but the Code does not seek to regulate what MPs do in their purely private and personal lives, nor does it seek to regulate MPs’ views and opinions. This means there is no oversight of mistakes or false or misleading claims Full Fact regularly sees.

30. The Commissioner for Standards has told the Committee on Standards that a high proportion of complaints she receives from members of the public relate to MPs’ social media posts and other uses of the internet, on the basis that they allegedly contain abusive or disrespectful language or errors of fact, exaggerations or downright lies.[29]

31. Full Fact sees the extent to which false or misleading claims made by MPs inform public debate. Social media posts or television interviews can have far greater reach than an inaccuracy made in the House of Commons, this is especially true in times of high intensity for the country, such as during a General Election or in the recent Covid-19 pandemic.

32. For example, during the 2019 general election the former Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn MP, misleadingly tweeted on 11 November 2019 that a Government formed by Boris Johnson “...could send £500 million a week from our NHS to big drugs companies”.[30] Despite Full Fact fact checking this claim and contacting Mr Corbyn about this, the tweet remains online and has been liked, tweeted and quoted more than 58,000 times.[31]

33. Another example can be seen by the former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP, during the Covid-19 pandemic. On 16 April 2020 on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Mr Hancock, claimed that 15,000 passengers were arriving into the UK daily[32], something Full Fact found no evidence for and that was contradicted by the Home Office.[33]

34. When MPs engage in a public forum outside of Parliament they are doing so in their capacity as public representatives, they should be subject to the Seven Principles of Public Life, including the principle of being Honest. The fact checks Full Fact has undertaken on MPs outside of Parliament, along with the number of complaints raised, unsuccessfully, to the Commissioner, highlights urgent need for this to be addressed.

The public’s perception of the workings of the House of Commons

35. Public debate around the standards for our elected representatives has increased in recent years, and there is demand to address the lack of coherency in parliamentary processes that impact on standards of honesty.
36. Full Fact research from 2021 shows that 71% of Britons believe there was more lying and misuse of facts in politics and media than 30 years ago.[34] And the Ipsos Issues Index shows that lack of faith in politics, politicians and Government has continued to be in the top concerns for the public including in recent months.[35]
37. Since April 2022 a Full Fact petition calling for “MPs to admit publicly when they get things wrong, and along with all MPs, agree new rules to make it easy to correct mistakes and stop politicians from misleading Parliament”, has received well over 50,000 signatures.[36] And Compassion in Politics reports that 76% of the public would back a specific criminal offence covering politicians who lie,[37] with over 200,000 signatures on their petition to bring in such an offence.[38]

38. While Full Fact does not believe a new specific criminal offence would be an effective or measured course of action, these petitions demonstrate significant public outcry at the problem of honesty in public life and underlines the need for change.

39. 2022 research by Spotlight on Corruption also finds that the majority of voters want to see wide ranging reforms to standards in public life, with 80% of respondents wanting the Ministerial Code put into law and to include a requirement to be honest. 70% of respondents also have no confidence in the current system for investigating and punishing Ministers who break the rules, and 71% believe we cannot trust politicians to police their own behaviour.[39]

40. This research demonstrates public demand to address the processes and structures of House of Commons standards bodies to increase ways MPs can be held to account when they make false or misleading claims, and would go a long way in changing the perception of Parliament as a place that people can trust.
41. The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s 2021 report, Upholding Standards in Public Life - A report of the Standards, sets out why this is important: “Perceptions of low ethical standards do not trigger immediate political crises, but such figures can be a sign of a long-term deterioration of confidence in British politics. Low figures on politicians owning up to mistakes, telling the truth, and being open about decision-making indicate a troubling disconnect between the standards the public expects of its elected leaders and the standards they perceive.” [40]

Full Fact recommendations to the Committee on Standards

42. Improving the lack of coherence amongst House of Commons standards bodies is crucial to ensure public concern around MP honesty and accountability is addressed.

43. Full Fact urgently calls for the Committee on Standards to recommend a new streamlined process to tackle MPs who make consistent or egregious misleading claims and refuse to correct them, and ensure they are effectively held to account.

44. We believe a simple five-step process that is based on existing House Processes could work to ensure MPs correct the record and are sanctioned for failing to do so:

1. When an MP believes another has made an error, they can ask the House of Commons Library to assess the issue. The UK Statistics Authority can also be called on to provide authoritative independent advice.

2. If the Library analysis confirms there was an error, the MP should raise that with the MP who made the statement and ask them to correct the record.

3. If the MP who made the statement fails to correct the record and is a Minister, the MP may ask the Speaker to authorise a debate or an Urgent Question under existing powers to bring attention to the issue.

4. If the Speaker becomes aware of multiple instances of an MP failing to correct the record when required, the Speaker should be given the power to refer this to the Commissioner for Standards for investigation.

5. If the Commissioner finds that an MP has persistently failed to correct the record the Committee on Standards should be empowered to impose appropriate sanctions.

45. This new system would include an enhanced role for the Speaker, both to act on failures of MPs to correct misleading statements on the record, and to act as a check on attempts to politicise the process. We recognise that conduct in the Commons Chamber means that the Commissioner for Standards may not investigate complaints about matters which fall under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. However, there are instances where an instant judgement by the Speaker is not possible and further investigation may be necessary. This change would allow the Speaker to have the option to refer a matter of conduct to the Commissioner for investigation.

46. This approach has several advantages. First, it has built-in cooling off time so that it cannot be used to make allegations of misleading the House in the heat of the moment. Secondly, it is informed by impartial input from the House of Commons Library. Thirdly, it depends on the Speaker to make a referral and the Committee on Standards to consider it so that it cannot be triggered by a single MP.

47. Full Fact urges the Committee on Standards to work closely with the Prime Minister to consider new mechanisms to ensure that the Ministerial Code of Conduct is more stringently enforced when Ministers fail to correct their mistakes in Parliament.[41]
48. In his book, Code of Conduct: Why we need to fix Parliament, Mr Bryant sets out his proposal for a mechanism that could be introduced to the House of Commons to ensure that the Ministers are better held to account[42]:

1. By introducing two new offences for knowingly, intentionally or recklessly misleading parliament as a Government Minister and refusing to correct the record when required to do so by the Office for National Statistics or the national commissioner for ethics and standards; and refusing to give evidence once legitimately summoned to a parliamentary committee of inquiry.

2. And if a Minister is put on formal notification by the UK Statistics Authority that they have used statistics in an inaccurate or misleading way, the House should require the Minister to correct the record. If the Minister refuses to do so within a set period, they should automatically be considered to have breached the Code of Conduct.

49. Full Fact thinks there is merit in the Committee on Standards considering Mr Bryant’s proposal, or a similar mechanism, to ensure the highest standards of accuracy and honesty of Government Ministers in Parliament are met.
50. Full Fact urges the Committee on Standards to commit to a future inquiry on how to address MPs who make false or misleading claims outside of Parliament, and what role the Parliamentary Commissioner should have within this.
51. We recognise the complexities that a system to address inaccuracies made outside of Parliament would have, but ensuring constituents’ concerns are addressed and upholding truth and accuracy in political discourse is vital.
52. Full Fact continues to support the Committee on Standards earlier recommendation from its inquiry on the Members’ Code of Conduct for the House Service to develop in-depth training on standards that should be delivered to all MPs within six months of a general election and for new MPs within six months of their election.[43]

53. We believe this training would help to address the lack of understanding some MPs have with the rules around correcting mistakes in Parliament and upholding the standards of Honesty, as set out in the Seven Principles of Public Life. It should also include guidance on sharing and presenting information accurately, and how to pursue a correction from a fellow MP.

September 2023