I am delighted to be able to be part of this workshop and to have the chance to explain the development of machinery to oversee the conduct of Members of Parliament in the UK. I am a member of the Rules Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I am also a member of the two standards’ committees in the UK: the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.
Until 1995, the system in place depended on the honour of Members of Parliament to register their interests. Allegations of failure to declare and register financial interests were dealt with by a Select Committee and disciplinary sanctions were imposed by the Commons using traditional powers under parliamentary privilege. The standards of conduct expected were vague and unwritten.
There were few public complaints about the system in the 1970s and 1980s. This was perhaps surprising because the lobbying industry was growing so fast. It is estimated that it tripled in size in the 1980s and by 1991 it was thought to be growing at 25 per cent a year. An analyst in 1991 estimated that 29 Public Relations and lobbying companies were paying retainers to MPs. In 1990, an MP John Browne was found to have taken cash to ask questions in parliament and was suspended from the House of Commons for 20 days. But Mr Browne complained that the investigation was unfair.
In 1994, the Sunday Times newspaper published allegations that two MPs, Graham Riddick and David Tredinnick had agreed to table parliamentary questions for cash payments. The investigations were passed to the Select Committee. There were public demonstrations that the Committee should sit in public and one member of the Committee Tony Benn MP made transcripts of the meetings and published them, leading to his discharge from the Committee.
The two MPs were found guilty, reprimanded and suspended from the House.
Soon afterwards, new allegations emerged in the Guardian newspaper that two Government Ministers Neil Hamilton and Tim Smith, had asked questions for cash on behalf of the then owner of Harrods, Mr Al Fayed.
An Opposition MP, Dale Campbell-Savours, not a member of the Select Committee staged a sit-in to complain about the investigation procedures being secret and the fact that a Government Whip had been appointed to the Select Committee. Arguments raged and it was clear that the system was under severe strain.
In October 1994 the Prime Minister, John Major, established the Committee on Standards in Public Life to look into the machinery to oversee MPs’ conduct. The Committee was chaired by Lord Nolan, one of the brightest Judges of his generation and included a top politician of each of the three main parties, eminent academics, civil servants and Sir Clifford Boulton, former Clerk of the House of Commons (the most senior official).
In their first report, the Committee established The Seven Principles of Public Life , also known as the ""Nolan principles"". They are included in the current Ministerial Code . The Principles are:
· Selflessness – Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.
· Integrity – Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.
· Objectivity – In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
· Accountability – Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
· Openness – Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
· Honesty – Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
· Leadership – Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.
The Committee recommended:
*A new code of conduct for MPs
*An independent Commissioner for Standards to maintain the Register of Interests and to investigate allegations of misconduct
*A new House of Commons Committee, the Committee on Standards and Privileges to hear cases where the Commissioner found breaches of the Code of Conduct. This Committee currently has 10 members – an equal number from the Government parties and the Opposition parties and is always chaired by an Opposition member.
*A ban on MPs acting as consultants to lobbying companies and a ban on paid advocacy
*Full Disclosure of consultancy agreements, payments and trade union sponsorship and payments
*A detailed and informative Register of MPs’ interests.
These steps were agreed in 1995 and in 1996 the Code of Conduct was introduced and the other points taken forward.
The Code of Conduct includes the Nolan Seven Principles of Public Life. The principles are also used in the devolved Scottish Parliament and the Welsh, Northern Ireland and Greater London Assemblies and in Local Government.
The Code of Conduct includes positive aspirations such as “to act so as to maintain the public’s trust and confidence”, where a failure would not normally be investigated – side by side with rules such as “never to undertake any action which would bring the House or its members generally into disrepute”, the duty to register financial interests, “not to act as a paid advocate” and “No improper use of any payment or allowance made for public purposes”, where a potential breach would be investigated.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that the Code of Conduct should be revised each Parliament, so about every five years, and the Commissioner and the Committee on Standards and Privileges have done so in the past and are doing so now.
In 2002, a threshold was introduced for declaring interests of 1 per cent of an MP’s salary, so anything below that need not be registered. A procedure was introduced for changing entries on the Register where minor mistakes had been made. In 2005 the Code was changed to extend the rules about misuse of parliamentary allowances to include misuse of facilities and services.
A power was introduced for the Commissioner to decide that a complaint was too minor to merit a report to the Committee and to allow a rectification – an example would be where a small amount of House of Commons stationery had been used for political purposes, rather than parliamentary purposes and the MP agreed to repay the cost. One change we will suggest this time is to separate out the serious rules in the Code, where a breach would lead to investigation and punishment, so they are clear.
We recently recommended that the Commissioner should be able to choose to instigate an investigation, rather than having to wait for a complaint or referral. This has now been implemented. We are also about to alter the rules to allow two lay members, non-parliamentarians to join the Committee of Standards and Privileges.
In 2008, MPs were required to register family members who worked for them.
In 2009, MPs were required to register full details of outside work, including hours worked and amounts received.
There are now 4 Registers:
Members Financial Interests
MPs Secretaries and Research Assistants
Register of Journalists Interests
Register of All Party Groups
So, did all these changes transform the situation for the better? Certainly, as regards conflicts of interest, it is clear things have improved and standards are better understood.
It is proposed to have a full Register of Lobbyists and the Government is currently consulting on this.
When allegations are made to the Commissioner, he starts an investigation and acts as Questioner. He is entitled to ask for documents and to question the MP extensively. He can seek evidence from witnesses. He has access to legal advice. He makes a Report to the Committee, which can hear evidence from the MP. Punishment is proposed to the House of Commons by the Committee and it is always passed. Punishment can range from requiring a public apology, a reprimand, demanding a sum is repaid, a suspension or the order of expulsion from the House. The Government is keen to add “recall”, so that a by-election would have to take place in a case of serious wrongdoing.
In 2008 a scandal emerged about allowances and MPs’ expenses, which has required further regulation. The Rules about allowances had been clearly set out, but the claims were not made public and the rules had flaws. Members were able to claim some amounts less than £250 without receipts. One allowance was to pay for staying in London during sessions. However, the applications for payment did not require enough supporting documentation and there was no guidance on the kind of expenditure and the level of expenditure considered reasonable. There was simply a maximum. The auditing did not descend into detail and the MP was not challenged. This meant that some wealthy MPs would spend the whole allowance on gardening and maintenance of a large property in London, whilst others used it legitimately to provide the rental and other costs of a flat near parliament. Some MPs were charging for mortgage interest payments on properties and making a profit in the London housing market. Some MPs claimed large amounts in total broken down into £250 lots, avoiding the need for receipts. MPs were able to employ family members and pay them using allowances. One MP was found to be “employing” a son away at University.
But no one knew what was going on. Then, the Daily Telegraph newspaper obtained details of the claims made by individual MPs and started publishing them – taxpayers’ money spent on clearing the moat of a castle, £2500 spent on buying a garden Duck House for the pond and so it went on. Mortgage interest was paid on a property where the MP was never seen.
Parliament was damaged in the public mind and changes had to be made. The Committee on Standards in Public Life published an important report, which set the arrangements now in place.
An independent authority was set up to pay MPs’ salaries and their expenses, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. All claims are now published on-line. Receipts are needed for every item and are published too. Limits have been set on the cost of rent and other restrictions apply. Mortgage interest does not qualify for payment. A tough audit is undertaken and there is a Compliance Officer to oversee claims.
Since the scandal, a number of MPs have been prosecuted for fraud and many more punished by the Committee of Standards and Privileges, including a senior Treasury Minister who was forced to resign and later suspended for a week, losing salary.
Our new system is very rigorous and some say rather too draconian, but public confidence is important and needs to be re-established. It helps that the General Election saw almost half the Members of the House of Commons change, so there has been a new start. But the public will take years to really recover their confidence in parliament. What GRECO does by highlighting these issues enables other parliaments to avoid the scandals we have had in the UK and is very worthwhile. The Committee on Standards in Public Life follows your work and draws on it. I wish the 4th Evaluation Round well. It is vital work.