Written evidence from Caroline Lucas MP (LAN0020)

Response to Committee on Standards Inquiry:

House of Commons standards landscape, December 2023

I am grateful to the Committee for undertaking this inquiry[1]. 

As identified in the questions put by the Committee in its call for evidence, public confidence in the regulation of the conduct of MPs is a matter of profound democratic importance. 

This is underscored in the recent report entitled The Future of Democracy in the UK, published last month by the UCL Constitution Unit, which found:

People in the UK care deeply about the standards of behaviour displayed by those in public life. They want politicians to be honest, to act with integrity, and to pursue the public interest, and they feel that many politicians fall far short of these standards at present. They think that systems for enforcing high standards should be tough on demonstrated wrongdoing. Most people think enforcement mechanisms are inadequate at present. [2]

At the time the Constitution Unit research was conducted, between 2021 and 2022, confidence in the system was being undermined by a perception that leading politicians, particularly the Prime Minister of the time, Boris Johnson, had lied regularly but faced no consequences:

“Most people did not know about existing enforcement mechanisms; so far as they could see, action was either not being taken, or moving far too slowly.”[3]

Confused jumble of current systems

To build and maintain trust in Parliament, we need a standards system that people can understand and in which they can have confidence.  By contrast, the current landscape of bodies and processes charged with overseeing MPs’ behaviour is a confusing mélange.  I note that, in its consultation on proposals for reviewing the Code of Conduct and the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members,[4] the Committee has stated:

Members work in a confusing landscape of a variety of codes and sets of rules, and are subject to institutional, cultural and public expectations, while always under intense media and public scrutiny.

This point is also made by Chris Bryant MP, the former Chair of the Committee on Standards, in his recent book where he describes the crowded jumble of rules and codes overseeing and governing MPs’ behaviour and standards:

“… today’s MPs have to abide by the following: the standing orders of the House; the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules; the Ministerial Code; the Parliamentary Behaviour Code (which lays down behaviour expected of all members of both Houses and the whole parliamentary community); the Stationery Rules; the All-Party Parliamentary Groups Rules; the Rules of Behaviour and Courtesies in the House of Commons; the Speaker’s rules on the use of the crowned portcullis (the special emblem that denotes the authority of the House); the rules of IPSA; and the oath of office. Their conduct is regulated or overseen by the standards commissioner and registrar; the Committee on Standards; the Committee of Privileges; the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme [the ICGS]; the Independent Expert Panel; the Electoral Commission; the independent adviser on ministers’ interests; the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments [ACOBA]; the Committee on Standards in Public Life; and the Speaker. In addition, they can be unseated under the Forfeiture Act 1870, the Insolvency Act 1986; the Enterprise Act 2002 and the Recall of MPs Act 2015 or thanks to an election petition.”[5]

From my perspective, broadly speaking, the House of Commons sits at the top of this confusing list. It has the final say on whether an individual MP should be suspended, however the system has no coherence.  For example, different people or codes in the above list have different functions and different powers. Some investigate, some advise, some regulate, and some can impose certain sanctions.  Some key posts are appointed by an independent process, some by the Prime Minister.  The standards landscape has grown in a piecemeal way, with significant changes usually being made in the wake of various public scandals.

Ministerial standards

The standards upheld by senior politicians is the aspect of MP behaviour that attracts the most comments from constituents. It is clear from this correspondence that the example set by those in the Cabinet has a profound impact on public confidence in our standards landscape overall.

The Committee will be fully aware that Boris Johnson’s tenure as an MP and as Prime Minister was littered with evidence of broken conventions and abuses of power before he was eventually held to account by the House of Commons.  Some of these are listed in an Open Democracy article from 2021, entitled 18 times Boris Johnson was accused of breaking rules – and got away with it [6].  This list includes:

• the illegal suspension of Parliament in 2019;
• plans to breach international law in the case of a ‘no-deal Brexit’;
• undeclared loans and donations relating to his lavish refurbishment of Downing Street and obfuscation over related Whatsapp messages;
• serious questions over ‘cash for peerages’[7];
• overriding his ethics adviser, Alex Allan, who found his Home Secretary Priti Patel guilty of bullying her staff;
• leaving the post of ethics adviser vacant for 6 months;
• ignoring the House of Lords Appointments Commission when it tried to block a peerage for the billionaire Tory donor Peter Cruddas;
• breaching of the Ministerial Code[8] over his Daily Mail column after he left office;
• breaking Covid law;
• lying to the House about parties in 10 Downing Street.

There were many other matters of concern, including the former Prime Minister’s misleading use of statistics.  For example, his repetition of an incorrect statistic about employment lead to a formal reprimand by the statistics watchdog[9]. The former PM ignored important democratic conventions for political ends in a range of ways, including, in December 2021, dressing up as a police officer for a media opportunity.  It might have looked comical but illustrated a dangerous disregard for the importance of the separation of power, undermining both the independence of police and the integrity of his office.[10]

Boris Johnson’s behaviour was not that of one “rotten apple”. To give just some examples, from the MPs Geoffrey Cox to Owen Paterson, Suella Braverman, Christopher Pincher, Damian Green, Priti Patel, Liam Fox, the process for dealing with alleged beaches of the Ministerial Code has been proven to be both far too slow and deeply politicised.

The Privileges Inquiry that removed Boris Johnson not inevitable

As the Committee knows, Boris Johnson eventually left Parliament in disgrace after being held to account over his set of lies to the House about parties at 10 Downing Street during the Covid 19 pandemic.  On 19 June 2023, the House debated the Privileges Committee report into this matter[11].  During that debate, I spoke of the overwhelming feeling of relief that, at last, the truth was being told in Parliament and that the collective gaslighting of a nation was finally over.

However, it was not inevitable that Boris Johnson faced the inquiry that eventually held him to account for lying to the House.

Whilst it is true to say that the outcome of the Privileges Inquiry suggests a system that is working, it also exposed the fragility of that system.

The Committee will be aware that the Privileges Inquiry only came about in April 2022 because of the spiraling unease amongst, and rebellion by, some Members on Boris Johnson’s backbenches, which meant he could not effectively whip his MPs to prevent it.  Over a year before that, in April 2021, I joined a wide cross-party group of MPs to call for an inquiry into Boris Johnson’s repeated lies to the House on other matters[12] - it did not happen.

“Good chap” conventions and the “Independent adviser” on the Ministerial Code

The archaic convention that sees Prime Ministers still mark their own homework on standards, including when they are the subject of an alleged breach, remains a fundamental flaw in. It is clear from my constituency postbag that constituents not only consider this unacceptable, it also profoundly undermines public trust.

We need new mechanisms to call any Minister, including a Prime Minister, to account if they deliberately mislead the House—a view shared prior to ‘partygate’, in 2021, by the Committee on Standards in Public Life[13], chaired by Lord Evans.

In its 2022 report Reinforcing Ethical Standards in Government[14]  the Institute for Government (IfG) recommended putting both the Ministerial Code and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointment rules on a statutory footing. I support this call, made alongside one for more powers for the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests.

As it stands, the role of the so-called independent adviser is, essentially, false advertising, and will continue to be so until that person is:

• appointed by an independent panel;
• able to initiate their own investigations;
• has the authority to determine breaches of the code.

Such basic, yet fundamental, changes would allow backbench MPs to bring concerns and evidence to the adviser, who could then act as they, and not just the Prime Minister, saw fit.

They would also help ensure that if a Minister misleads the House deliberately, or if they do so inadvertently but do not correct the record at the earliest opportunity, they are routinely held to account.

The culture, at ministerial level, of disrespecting government procedure and convention and of bending rules did not disappear when Boris Johnson left Downing Street in July 2022 - democratic standards are still being tested today, in profound and serious ways. 

For example, his first successor as Prime Minister, Liz Truss MP, infamously ignored the convention of seeking proper advice and adhering to due process with her sidelining the Office for Budget Responsibility, triggering an immediate economic meltdown with her ‘mini budget’.

Rishi Sunak MP took her place as Prime Minister with the following promise:

“This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level.”[15]

That was certainly what we were all desperate to hear, but he failed to make the basic changes required to secure the independence of the Adviser on Minister’s Interests, and his government has since breached standards and convention on a serial basis. For example:

• appointing Suella Braveman MP as Home Secretary, six days after she left cabinet for breaking the Ministerial Code;
• appointing Gavin Williamson MP as Education Secretary of State, despite being warned about the bullying claims against him;[16]
• failing to follow convention and publish the usual exchange of letters explaining why he was asking Suella Braverman MP to leave office;
• delaying withdrawal of the whip from Michelle Mone over allegations of pocketing millions during the pandemic;
• taking two months to appoint an ethics adviser on the Ministerial Code despite unprecedented concerns about breaches of the Code;
• leaving vacant the position of anti-corruption champion for 18 months (and counting);
• avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny by making a major policy announcement on net zero policy during recess[17]
• failing to reply to a formal letter from the UN Rapporteur on human rights and climate change within the requested 60 days; [18][19]
• appointing an unelected Foreign Secretary;
• undermining respect for compliance with the rule of law by tabling emergency legislation to override a decision of the UK’s highest domestic court (on the Rwanda plan)[20]. This is not in line with the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law contained in the Ministerial Code.[21] It is also a breach of the civil service code, which dictates that officials must not back an approach that does not comply with international law.  Any Minister asking civil servants to break their own standards code is in turn breaking the Nolan Principles of public life.[22]

Comparison of the Ministerial Code and the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service

In its November 2021 report, Upholding Standards in Public Life[23], the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) looked at the bodies with responsibilities relating to standards in government. This included comparison of the independence of ethics regulators in Parliament and central government, and of the Ministerial Code with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Service (ICGS).  I worked extensively on a cross-party basis in support of the formulation of the ICGS, and although it is not perfect, it is a vast improvement in terms of process and significantly moves things in the right direction on the matter of independence. The benefits of independence are highlighted in the CPSL report:

“Comparisons with Parliament highlight the importance of greater independence. Improvements in the independence of investigations in the House of Commons on bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment bring matters under the Ministerial Code into sharp relief.”

It is vital that the very highest standards of independence are at the heart of all the mechanisms for holding MPs and Ministers to account.

MPs and second jobs

There are many matters relevant to this important inquiry that I do not have the capacity to cover in the time available.  One additional matter that I would like to flag, based on my constituency postbag, is that constituents are concerned about MPs having paid second jobs. 

My view is that MPs should only be allowed to take up a second job if the circumstances are genuinely exceptional.  For example, where a doctor or nurse needs to do a small number of hours to maintain vital skills or so they can contribute to the community, as some MPs did during the pandemic.

Being a good MP is more than a full-time job.  It is grossly out of touch and insulting to constituents that our rules currently suggest it is acceptable to rake in thousands for second jobs that do not fall into the exceptional professional qualifications/public service category. For example, MPs accepting large amounts of money to act as advisers or board members or similar, is inconsistent with MPs putting their constituents first and with avoiding potential or perceived conflicts of interest.

Our standards landscape and rules system must take conflicts of interest more seriously. Just declaring them is not enough. For example, it is not healthy for MPs to work for organisations like GB News, taking large salaries for work that removes them from their roles and responsibilities as elected representatives.

The Committee will be aware that Lee Anderson MP was found to have breached Parliamentary rules[24] by filming a promotional video for GB News on the Parliamentary estate for a commercial purpose, without authorisation.  In addition, he was found to have used his Parliamentary email address to advertise his GB news programme.  He simply apologised, retrospectively paid for the filming but faced no other sanction[25].  To the public, it looks like he got away with it whilst continuing to rake in a massive salary that clearly interferes with his responsibilities as an MP.

The money aside, second jobs can create other standards issues, about which our standards landscape appears silent.  For example, it is sinister when you have Tory MPs populating a ‘news channel’ as presenters.  This creates serious problems for impartiality and public perception which do not fit with the Nolan principles of public life[26].  Yet, when Tory MPs Esther McVey and Philip Davies presented themselves as objective 'news‘ interviewers of the Chancellor of their own political Party and Ofcom found that GB news had broken its rules, the MPs involved faced no rebuke.[27]

Jeremy Hunt MP, Philip Davies MP and Esther McVey MP would all have been fully aware they were participating in a party-political stitch up masquerading as impartial accountability.  A healthy standards landscape would not have remained silent and inactive about that.

Conclusions and Recommendations

During this Parliament we have become acutely aware of the dangers of assuming that democracy is inevitable, perpetual and unshakeable.  It is not.  It is breakable and contingent – something we must actively and vigilantly defend. This means ensuring that our standards systems are fit for purpose, can withstand attack, and command public respect.

To this end, urgent action is required to ban second jobs for MPs with exceptions for qualification maintenance/public service.

And we need to urgently streamline the current hodgepodge of codes that regulate standards across Parliament and government, including putting an immediate end to the Prime Minister marking their own standards homework. 

There are aspects of the suggestion Chris Bryant MP has made in his recent book for a new Parliamentary Standards Reform Bill which warrant further consideration:

“amalgamate the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and the House of Commons and House of Lords commissioners for standards into a single national commissioner for ethics and standards, accountable to parliament, and bring the Commons Code of Conduct, the Lords rules, the Behaviour Code and the Ministerial Code together into a single parliamentary code. It should also require Commons support for any proposal to suspend, prorogue or adjourn parliament (either overnight or for a longer period) and to dissolve it for an early general election and end the practice of secondary legislation coming into force before it is published or has been considered by Parliament.

However, retaining accountability to Parliament risks the ongoing politicisation of these important mechanisms. I therefore suggest that further work be undertaken to explore how genuine independence can be delivered alongside retaining parliamentary privilege.

Any legislation leading to the streamlining of codes would need to ensure that independence was meaningful and central, and not lost from any of the existing bodies/processes, with a national commissioner being appointed by an independent panel; able to initiate their own investigations; and with the authority to determine breaches of the code.

I support the call (also from Chris Bryant MP) for two new offences to strengthen Parliament’s ability to hold MPs to account, as follows:

“knowingly, intentionally or recklessly misleading parliament as a government minister and refusing to correct the record when required to do by the Office for National Statistics or the national commissioner for ethics and standards”

“refusing to give evidence once legitimately summoned to a parliamentary committee of inquiry.”

Standards are not a technicality; our democracy depends on them, and the current landscape needs to be bolstered and streamlined.

December 2023