Written evidence from Emma Woods (LAN0022)
Response to call for evidence
I write this from a place of deep frustration for the UK Parliamentary system. I am ordinary citizen representing my own views. I have tried unsuccessfully to hold my MP to account and this call for evidence comes at an opportune time for me to express my disappointment with the existing process in place which make it impossible for members of the public to hold MPs accountable.
I am deeply concerned about the lack of accountability, transparency, honesty and integrity in our current political system and I implore the Committee to critically assess the existing standards landscape and actively engage with the public to understand their views of the Parliamentary system.
I would be surprised if 0.01% of the public were aware of this call for evidence. I am only aware because I called the Houses of Parliament out of sheer frustration at the inability of the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner to take action on my MPs breach of the Code of Conduct. As a former Civil Servant I am acutely aware of the standards that Civil Servants are held to. Unfortunately these standards no longer seem to be applicable to elected officials. The Committee should be undertaking regular research with the public to understand their engagement with the Parliamentary system and how this can be improved. This is core to ensuring democracy and accountability.
I would be happy to discuss my responses with the team collating evidence or the Committee itself should that be useful.
In despair,
Emma Woods
--------------------------------------------------------
Call for evidence
The Committee would welcome written evidence addressing the following questions:
Confusing and unnecessarily complex. There are 8 bodies that have a role in the direct regulation of MPs, 2 indirect or advisory and 4 for the regulation of ministers or former minsters. As a member of the public, not directly involved in the business of Parliament this is overly complicated and complex and makes it prohibitive for members of the public to hold their MPs to account. Imagine if you called 999 in an emergency and you had 14 different options to chose from. You would be bewildered with the choice, delaying action on the emergency. As a society we have found ways to manage complex organisational structures which are simplified for the general public.
Despite the fact there are 8 bodies involved in the regulation of MPs I cannot find one which will hold my MP to account. I have recently had reason to complain against the conduct of my MP. I have spent significant time researching the correct route to do this to no avail. I had read through the Code of Conduct, identified where I believe my MP has broken the code and contacted the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards whose office has informed me he is unable to open a case into the matter. According to his office;
“The Commissioner is in general expressly prevented by the Procedural Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct from investigating a Member’s views or opinions, including those expressed on social media.”
I must ask the Committee why it is not possible to hold your MP to account when they are spreading misinformation and inciting hate and tension amongst their constituents?
My MP has now escalated this further by making defamatory comments about myself in a Westminster Hall debate. As I have no recourse through the Parliamentary standards or regulatory bodies I have been seeking legal advice.
Citizens should not have to pursue legal action at their own cost in order to hold their elected officials to account. Members of Parliament should not be able to make unsubstantiated or false claims as this damages the core of Parliamentary integrity and democracy.
Absolutely not. From my research there seems to be a significant focus on financial conduct (I assume due to the misuse of MP’s expenses) and limited to no enforcement of the Seven Principles of public life.
I cannot understand how the Code of Conduct claims to “ensure the openness and accountability essential to the proper functioning of a representative democracy” when the Parliamentary Commissioner is expressly prevented from enforcing this. How can the Code of Conduct ensure openness and accountability without a means to enforce breaches?
My MP is not expressing views or opinions, he is sharing information which has demonstrably proved to be false. If our elected officials are able to spread misinformation, I cannot understand how it can be argued the UK enjoys a just, fair and democratic society.
Yes. As a member of public I have very little understanding about the 14 different bodies listed as having a role in the regulation of MPs and ministers and I shouldn’t have to. There should be a central website or contact that members of the public can contact to find the most relevant information to their enquiry. I had to battle to find the relevant route to complain about my MP only to be told they did not have the power to investigate. Members of the public should not have to and do not have time to navigate a system that is overly complex and confusing.
Critical to this discussion is whether the Committee on Standards actually wants the public to be able to hold their elected officials to account. The current system of 14 bodies involved in Parliamentary standards, yet still somehow manages to be unable to hold MPs to account is quite frankly astonishing.
As a member of the public my route for complaints about the conduct of the government, my MP or Parliament is through my MP. If your MP refuses to engage or disagrees with your complaint they are under no obligation to take your correspondence further and there appears to be no other organisations your can reach out to such as an Ombudsman who would take your complaint further. In other areas of life if you have a complaint there are often separate entities (Human Resources), organisations (Unions, Citizens Advice etc) or Ombudsman services which offer oversight and protection for citizens. In the area of MPs this appears to be lacking.
An example of this is my recent complaint about my MP, wherein I contacted the MP’s office who after discussion with the MP concluded that it would not be appropriate for his office to be involved. The MP will now determine himself the most appropriate course of action, including whether he is willing to accept an appointment with myself or simply ignore me. My concern is, if this MP continues to be my elected official for years into the future and I have concerns about different aspects of Government or local policy, will he have the power to refuse to engage with my or listen to my concerns? I have lost my voice and have no recourse against this.
As someone who previously worked in the civil service and has an interest in civic engagement I probably have a greater interest in political accountability than the average citizen and even I have struggled to engage with the system to demand accountability and democratic justice. It should be relatively simple to design a system that is easy to navigate, transparent and effective at holding MPs accountable. The question is whether MPs genuinely want a system that enables that, rather than hiding behind the false argument that they will be held to account at the next election.
I am unable to comment on this.
I am unable to comment on this.
Absolutely. As mentioned above, as a member of the public I have very limited time to become a Parliamentary expert just to complain about the conduct of my MP. Even a simple routing website where members of the public could input their query and be given the appropriate route to follow would be helpful.
Yes. See above. A centralised body for complaints which can then be routed to the appropriate department or body. The public should not have to take on this administrative burden which probably makes complaining prohibitive.
Without undertaking a google search I have no knowledge about what this is, which is probably an indication that it is not well understood by members of the public.
Something else I find astounding is that in every job I have ever had, I have always had clear roles, responsibilities and objectives. MPs do not have this. They do not have clear responsibilities to their constituents and whilst I understand MPs need flexibility in order to provide a service that best meets the needs of their constituents, the fact that MPs operate in wildly different manners seems bizarre.
I recent months I have moved house. Our previous MP never ran surgeries, gave very few updates of their activities and rarely responded to emails. Our new MP regularly runs surgeries, is active on social media and in local communities and responds quickly to email enquiries. Again, whilst I know MPs would say that they will be removed from their post at the next election if their local constituents are not happy with their approach this seems a poor approach to accountability.
It might be naïve of me to ask, but why would it not be possible to set minimum service levels for MPs which included hours spent in Parliamentary, on constituency business or a minimum amount of contact with their constituents? Most employees across the UK are subject to criteria such as this and undergo regular appraisals to ensure they are meeting their objectives or targets. Why should MPs be exempt?
January 2024