Written Supplementary evidence by Professor Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit, UCL (LAN0024)

This submission follows the oral evidence session on 24 January, to pursue three further points.  These are the oath sworn by MPs; training for MPs; and public education.

The wording of the oath taken by MPs at the start of a new parliament is prescribed by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868, and its manner and form in the Oaths Act 1978. Any amendment to the statutory oath would require further legislation. Absent such legislation, for MPs to give a solemn undertaking to abide by the Nolan Principles or the Code of Conduct (which includes the Nolan Principles) would require a resolution of the House of Commons, or a change to Standing Orders. The requirement could be to take a second oath, or to sign a written declaration. The latter practice is what happens in the House of Lords, where peers are required to sign an undertaking to abide by the Lords Code of Conduct, following a resolution of the House of Lords agreed on 30 November 2009.

Whether MPs should swear a second oath, or sign a written undertaking (or both), will depend partly on the practicalities of the swearing in ceremony, on which the clerks can advise. I would add a further suggestion: that after swearing or signing, MPs are given a copy of the Code of Conduct, and informed of the training opportunities provided to enable MPs to understand its practical requirements.  This could include sessions led by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, with case studies of common difficulties and failings, to try to ensure that in the next parliament there are fewer lapses in standards.

Our evidence session also discussed the possibility of a web portal, to make the standards framework and the individual regulators more accessible. This was in the context of people wishing to lodge a complaint; but the need goes much wider than that.  The standards machinery is hard to understand because it is opaque, fragmented and lacking in signposts. There does not appear to be anywhere on the parliamentary website which explains in one place the respective roles of the Standards Committee, Privileges Committee, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,               ICGS and IPSA. The fragmentation is even worse with the six different watchdogs which regulate the conduct of the executive. Our forthcoming report Constitutional Watchdogs: Restoring the Role suggests that CSPL should provide a website portal that points to the different watchdogs, explaining what they do, and how they relate to each other. Such a portal could also be provided by parliament, for the parliamentary watchdogs, with a separate portal hosted by the Cabinet Office, for the watchdogs which regulate the executive; we suggest a single portal supplied by CSPL as an overview body which straddles both institutions. In her oral evidence Professor Gillian Peele strongly supported the idea of a portal; but it remains unclear who might provide it. If the Standards Committee also support the idea, we hope the committee will help to identify who should provide the portal: whether this should be the Cabinet Office, CSPL or some other body.

February 2024