Baroness Manningham-Buller
Main Page: Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench - Life peer)House of Lords Conduct Committee: Code of Conduct Review
Baroness Manningham-Buller Excerpts
Baroness Manningham-Buller
That the Grand Committee takes note of the review by the Conduct Committee of the House of Lords code of conduct.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, this is not going to be a conventional debate. I am not going to pose as a Minister, attempt to sum up or answer or deflect questions. The aim of the debate is for me to listen—other members of the committee are here—and feed noble Lords’ views and opinions into the review that we have in hand, on which we have already had some excellent contributions, including from people in this Room, and on which we are continuing to take evidence until the end of October. This debate was suggested by some Peers. I welcome it because it is a further opportunity for us to collect information before we come back to the House, probably towards the end of this year—perhaps early next year —with our recommendations for changes to the code. We hope we will get as broad a range as possible.
I come to the timetable. Following the launch of the review in April, the suggestion of the Conduct Committee—it was our view—was that the code needs reform. This was disrupted by the Dissolution of Parliament in late May, so we have extended the deadline for contributions until the end of this month. For the record, I ask Peers who wish to say things but who are not able to be here this afternoon to please write to us, because we want to have all views. Also, party leaders and the convenor are coming to give evidence quite soon, so another way would be to put contributions to them.
Let me say something about the scope of the review. We start with the existing code. As your Lordships’ Conduct Committee, we operate within parameters agreed by the House over many years. These include the House’s decision in 2009 to appoint an independent Commissioner for Standards—at that stage, I also chaired the precursor of this committee, the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct—and its related decision a decade later, in 2019, to appoint four lay members of the committee to add to the five Peers who sit on it. I take this opportunity to thank the commissioners—we now have two of them—and lay members for their insight and help.
Why are we suggesting a review? There are several reasons. The code and its guide are too long. Regular amendments since the first major overhaul in 2009 have led to the code and the related guide, taken together, doubling in length since 2010. Some changes have been forced on us by statutory change or outside events or to clarify points of uncertainty—for example, in the processes of investigation or the rules governing financial issues. With the greater length has come complexity with, for example, the distinction between general principles and specific rules being unclear. It is a bit of a patchwork document which may confuse. It is also clear that many Members have never actually read it and have certainly not got to appendix B.
I know that some noble Lords feel that we need only a simple statement of general principles of conduct. I agree that the code should articulate these principles clearly, including the Nolan principles, that guide us as Members of the House. However, it is worth pointing out that the Code of Conduct is not just to guide Members but to reinforce public confidence in the House. To that extent, it is an outward-facing as well as inward-facing document. It is clear from the comments we get that the public, whom we serve collectively, expect Members of the House of Lords, like MPs or other public servants, to abide by clear rules requiring high standards of conduct to try to ensure that we meet the Nolan principles of openness, accountability, selflessness, objectivity—that of course is not possible in politics, but never mind; the others still stand—integrity, honesty, and leadership.
The registration of relevant interests lies at the heart of this. In past generations, noble Lords declared their interests in debate, largely for the benefit of other Members, but for the past 30 years it has been accepted that we should make those disclosures in a public and lasting form, by means of the register. To support the process, we need clear rules, covering categories of interests, thresholds for registration and so on. Expectations of radical change to the code probably need to be tempered, because some length and complexity will be difficult to avoid. I am none the less of the view that we can make it very much better than it currently is.
It is also clear that some noble Lords feel that the reach of the code has gone too far and are apprehensive that this review is another excuse for mission creep. I assure all noble Lords that it is not. The committee, including the lay members, fully understands the value to this House of our Members having extensive experience, in many cases elsewhere, and bringing it to bear on current issues.
We have asked some difficult questions in our call for evidence, but these are questions that regularly reach us. That is why we need noble Lords’ views. A particularly difficult question is whether there should be a general rule to prohibit conduct that causes significant reputational damage to the House as a whole. This is not a new issue. Our predecessor committee, the Committee for Privileges and Conduct, recommended such a rule as far back as 2016 in a report entitled Undermining Public Confidence in the House. That report was never taken to the Floor of the House and nor has the Conduct Committee ever brought forward firm proposals, despite repeatedly being invited to consider the issue, usually in the wake of some media uproar. There is no easy answer and it may still be too difficult, but it is right that we are asked the question once more.
We aim to satisfy ourselves that the code is fit for purpose and the rules are expressed as clearly and succinctly as possible. I will end there. I emphasise that we really are listening. We see this as an evidence-collecting session. I welcome the proposal that we do this, but I will not respond in detail, as I said at the beginning, because we have not had all the evidence in yet; we still have to hear from the heads of the parties, the convenor and the Leader of the House. Then we will be ready, at some stage, to put proposals to your Lordships’ House. I thank noble Lords for coming. We will listen very carefully.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, for giving us this opportunity and for the brilliant way in which she has carried out the chairmanship of this committee, which I hope will go on for many more years. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, who is very wise—and I think that we are all grateful for the work that she has done. However, the world has changed a bit, and we need to reflect that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said at the beginning that the code was too long and too detailed, and I could not agree more. It is not just that it takes a long time to read it. Incidentally, the copies that have been provided in the Printed Paper Office do not include the appendices that were in the original document, including appendix B on page 56, paragraphs 19 and 20 of which were frankly just offensive. I hope that the fact that they are not included means that they are going to disappear for the foreseeable future.
There are trivial complaints made that should really be dealt with by the usual channels and not by the commissioner, and an abuse of the complaints system for political purposes is now happening, often through social media. The reputational damage done to an individual who may be subject to a vexatious complaint when the complaint is made public is enormous. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, urged us not to talk about individual cases, but I am going to talk about one. We can see what has happened to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. Someone apparently made a complaint that he had not declared a particular interest. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but it has resulted in pages and pages and day after day of coverage about him, and he is in a position where he is not allowed to comment on this or defend himself, which to my mind is neither fair nor right. One sees people doing this again and again. I do not make this accusation about any one party; we all have people in political parties who think that this is an appropriate way to behave, but I do not.
The other issue that worries me, which is again to do with Members’ vulnerability, is that if the commissioner is investigating a particular complaint Members are not allowed to have any legal representation.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
I said I was not going to interrupt. Anybody can have legal representation. That is not improper. What they cannot do is ask their lawyer to answer the questions for them. In fact, most people who are subject to serious allegations seek legal advice immediately and have it beside them at all stages.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am aware of that; it is actually spelled out in the document on the basis that this is seen not as a legalistic procedure but as a more informal one. However, if your entire reputation is on the line, you should be able to have the basic standards of natural justice. In the case of a criminal prosecution, for example, no one would argue that your lawyer should not be able to make representations on your behalf. It is the business of confidentiality not being able to share that with colleagues; that is probably observed more often in the breach but, if you have been wrongly accused of something, it is all over the newspapers and you are not allowed to talk to any of your colleagues to get advice and help, that is a very unpleasant position to be left in. There is also the issue that it takes for ever for the matter to be decided. By the time it is, if you have been found to have been traduced, nobody is interested. You might get a single line in a newspaper. I worry about the process.
I am conscious of the strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, not to mention particular cases, but I also worry about a recent case where the commissioner decided on a particular sanction and then asked the complainant what they thought of the sanction. The commissioner then changed the sanction to make it more severe as a result of talking to the complainant. To me, that feels a little dodgy, to put it mildly. It is true that, in the legal system, we take evidence from people who have been subjected to a crime about its impact on them, but we do not allow them to decide what the sentence should be.
Picking up the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, I agree that the House of Lords is different from the House of Commons. We should be. However, we are a part-time House while the Commons is a full-time House. Look at the sanctions that are applied in the other place: if people who have committed quite serious breaches of the code there and done some pretty stupid things are suspended for more than a set number of days, they can find themselves subject to a recall petition. The sanctions over exclusion therefore tend to be small numbers of days. However, colleagues in this House have been excluded for months—six months, in one case. The difference is that, in the House of Commons, if you are excluded for less than the recall period, you continue to be paid and to receive all your allowances, while Members of this House are unable to gain any of their allowances and go unpaid. Therefore, an extended period of exclusion is a far more severe penalty than would apply to Members of the House of Commons. Although I accept that we should be different, I do not really see why we should have such broadly different tariffs for breaches of the codes.
The other issue where I hope we will be different is where people have been accused of some criminal offence. It is essential that any decision to exclude them should be made only after they have been charged, not on arrest, for the obvious reason of maintaining the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I know that a different view has been taken in the other place but I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, that we should decide our own rules on these matters—although that does create a slight anomaly.
I am also worried about what I would describe as the committee’s mission creep; the chairman touched on that. It is highly inappropriate that Peers’ conduct not related to their parliamentary activities or role should be within the scope of the commissioner. I do not think that it is for him or her to look at that. I also cannot for the life of me understand why, under the code, you have to inform the Clerk of the House if you are subject to an investigation by a professional body. What has that got to do with the Clerk of the House? A doctor subject to a complaint to the GMC would have to tell the Clerk of the House about that. Why is that appropriate? Why should a company chairman, perhaps found to be in breach of health and safety legislation and subject to an investigation by the HSE, have to tell the Clerk of the House? What business is that of the House of Lords?
It is just wrong. We have a number of Peers in high-profile public and private roles. Where does it end? Does it apply to a head teacher who is accused of breaching employment law, or to a landlord/tenant dispute? I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, got quite close to touching on this: there seems to be a suspicion growing that anything that damages the reputation of a Peer damages the reputation of the House. That cannot be right, and it is dangerous.
There was a recent example in the debate the other day about VAT on school fees. A colleague on the Government Benches made an accusation about what had happened in a particular school. Someone then said that it was not true and made a complaint to the commissioner and, as a result, got a whole load of coverage about this person having misled the House. The newspapers put it rather more strongly than that. It is none of the business of the commissioner to look at what is said in the Chamber. Lots of things are said in the Chamber that are a matter for debate. If people think that someone has misled the House in some way, there are lots of processes by which that can be corrected or debated. I worry about the idea of mission creep and the perception of the role of the commissioner. They will say, “We’ve had a complaint that so-and-so didn’t tell the House the truth”, which then becomes a story. That is a real-life example. This is not a partisan point; in both cases I am defending people who are members of the government party. I was going to say opposition party, but that is me now.
I am sure that the independent members of the Conduct Committee do a great job, but I worry about the balance between external members and people who have detailed knowledge of parliamentary procedure and an understanding of the political process. I wonder if the balance is too far in one direction. An example of that is the requirement to declare your interests. It is absolutely impossible to declare your interests at Question Time without irritating the House. Therefore, people stand up and say, “I refer to my interests in the register”, which is frankly a waste of time. We do not have the register and we do not know what the interests are. If you are watching from the outside, you think, “Ah, he or she must be in someone’s pay”. It is a fatuous requirement. We end up in a situation where people are breaching the code, as is explained in the document.
I also want to re-emphasise the difference between paid advocacy, which is speaking in the House or to Ministers specifically about a business interest—it is quite rightly forbidden—and speaking on the generality of policy, which may impact negatively on a company from which they receive payment. While I was chairing a bank, I never asked any questions about issues which affected the bank because I felt vulnerable to being accused of paid advocacy, even though I know that the rules would have provided for the general position. It is undoubtedly the case that people are afraid of speaking on certain areas because this is not widely understood. Because it is not widely understood, mischievous journalists can make hay from it.
In short, I really welcome what the chairman of the committee said, because the committee needs to rewrite the code and to undertake a review of the approach which is taken, so that it takes account of the impact of social media and the increasing exposure of Members to unjustified reputational damage from malign political influences.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky. Unfortunately, he has stolen some of my thunder, as I was going to go through some of the history of the evolution of the Code of Conduct. I will cover a little of it but will attempt not to repeat what he said.
I welcome this debate, but it is sad that only 12 noble Lords have opted to take part, although perhaps encouraging that others have stayed to listen. It would have been better to see greater involvement.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
Quite a lot of Peers, not all of them here today, have put in written submissions and have been doing so since spring. If noble Lords chose not to come today or preferred the very interesting things happening next door, it may be because they have already sent us a note, of which we have had quite a few.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I accept that point. The choice of the Government to put the debate in this Room may well have affected the willingness of noble Lords to take part, because putting it here usually says “not so important” to noble Lords.
The code has become a monster and we need to do something about it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, when I joined the House there was no Code of Conduct. We managed perfectly well with the rather minimal rules of declaration of interests and very light-touch registration of interests. We had the two foundational principles that Peers should always act on their personal honour and should never accept any financial inducement for exercising parliamentary influence. That served us well.
I had not been in the House very long before we acquired our first Code of Conduct. We got it back in 2000 because the Committee on Standards in Public Life decided to have a look at whether the House of Lords should have a code of conduct. It fully accepted that there was no scandal or issue leading to the suggestion that we needed one, but nevertheless recommended that we have one. The rationale, so far as one was given, appeared to be that, because other legislators and organisations had codes of conduct, we should have one too. That, as far as I can see, is the only reason why we started to have one.
As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, reminded us, in the wake of the “cash for amendments” scandal and, in timing terms, in alignment with the MPs’ expenses scandal, it was decided that something more should be done. It is said that hard cases make bad law. I must say, I think that media-based scandals make rotten rules; that is one reason we have got stuck with a Code of Conduct that does not seem to work for a lot of people.
We got to 2010, and we had those scandals. We had the feeling that we had to show public penance—that is, we had to wear hair shirts and do things. Self-regulation, which is a defining principle of the way in which we run our affairs in this House, partially went out the window when we started to get outsiders in, first in relation to the Commissioner for Standards then later in relation to the Conduct Committee. I regret that we went down that route because I could see no necessity for it.
I turn to the code. When the Committee on Standards in Public Life decided that we should have one, it said that it needed to be only a short code, which I think was probably a recognition that we did not really need one at all. I have not been able to track down a digital or physical copy of that first code, so I do not know how long it was, but it was certainly shorter than the version that appeared in 2010; the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said that that one was 28 pages. The earlier one was certainly shorter because, looking at the debates around the time of the 2010 revision, there was a great desire from people to show that they were doing things—that they had to have more rules, more penalties and, ultimately, more pages. We now have a code that is double that length; it particularly grew when the behaviour code and the infamous appendix B was added.
It should also be said that 2010 was the time when all noble Lords were compulsorily obliged to waste their time and taxpayers’ money on the completely useless course on the behaviour code. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said about this. There should be no reason for any compulsion; I include in that the requirement for new Peers to attend the course.
The two foundational principles remain valid and cover everything that is relevant. We should question whether these 56 pages add to or detract from those principles. My own view is that the usefulness of the code in guiding Members’ behaviour is inversely related to its length. The mass of detail in the code conceals the underlying principles, in effect; I do not think that it enhances the effectiveness of the code to have so much detail in it. I encourage the committee to go back to basics when looking at revising the code. It should not be just a question of making small amendments here and there; it should be about going back to asking what we absolutely need to put in it and what can be relegated somewhere else or dealt with in another way.
When God gave Moses the 10 commandments, they were written on two tablets. In modern day parlance, I think that is roughly equivalent to one side of A4. Moses did not think that it was necessary to add any more tablets, another 50 or 100, of detailed rules to underpin the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments have endured and are well understood, but I am not sure that the same can be said of the Code of Conduct. I hope that the committee will take as a style guide the conciseness with which the 10 commandments are expressed and the lack of need to embellish them with unnecessary detail.
In addition to focusing the code back more clearly on its roots, and the focus on the underlying principles, I hope that the committee will look at whether material not directly related to the Code of Conduct can be removed. I am not at all clear why the Code of Conduct for Members includes a Code of Conduct for Members’ staff. That could be dealt with elsewhere, in a way that is accessible to Members’ staff. That is only three pages—but there are 14 or 15 pages about enforcement. I query whether a document intending to deal with the Code of Conduct should have in it detailed rules about how complaints are dealt with. That is a separate issue from the Code of Conduct and can be safely put in another document.
I can just about live with the page of motherhood and apple pie of the behaviour code in the first appendix, but the extraordinary detail in appendix B, which we heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is certainly not necessary to Members of this House and exposes this House to ridicule. There is one good place to put the five pages of appendix B, and it is not at the back of the Code of Conduct.
I shall focus my remarks primarily on the issue of the broad approach to the code—that is, that it should be more principles based and less detail based, focused on essentials. I would like to cover some specific additional aspects. First, I very much regret the fact that the rules introduced about declaring earnings from clients that are foreign Governments led to several noble Lords taking leave of absence. Those of us who had careers in professions that regard client confidentiality as sacrosanct were frankly appalled by them. I am not convinced that the benefit of those rules stands up to scrutiny; they are certainly worth revisiting.
Secondly, I do not think that the rules that govern how the commissioner handles complaints meet the rules of natural justice that the Code of Conduct itself requires. The commissioner is the investigating policeman and the prosecutor but also the judge and jury. The accused Member does not have effective legal representation in the sense that he does not have a person who is able to put a case for the Member.
All that is justified on the basis that the proceedings are inquisitorial rather than adversarial in nature. I have talked to several noble Lords who have been caught up in the process of having a complaint against them. Whether they are guilty or not, I do not think that they share that analysis—that it is a mere inquisitorial process. They all find it extremely stressful; it goes on for a very long time, and many still bear the scars a long time after the process has completed. Lives have certainly been ruined by judgments being reached on the balance of probabilities. We really need to look again very carefully at the procedure for handling complaints.
Lastly, although it is not my final concern with the rules—but I have rationed myself to three for the purposes of today’s debate—I very strongly believe that we should not extend our code to activities outside Parliament. The requirement to act on personal honour effectively covers egregious matters that can bring the House into disrepute. The most egregious examples have been effectively dealt with by the House without formally extending the rules into private activity. I am absolutely clear that we must not open the floodgates to vexatious complaints based on private beliefs and private activities.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I said at the beginning that I was not going to answer all the points and that this was an evidence-collecting sitting. I very much thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The committee—despite the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, to abolish it altogether—is determined to do a good job on this Code of Conduct. I point out that we are reviewing it not because any Member of the House asked us to do so but because we, looking at it critically and reading it ourselves on a weekly basis, decided to suggest to the House that we should review it. That is the background. A few errors of fact have been stated in this debate, but I will not pick up on them because they are probably caused by some confusion in the code itself.
I suspect this will be like an outcome to a public inquiry; we will not please everybody. Some will say that we have not gone far enough and some that we have gone too far. We have heard and taken in all that noble Lords have said. If noble Lords who have not spoken have additional things they want to say, they should please send them to me or to the committee’s clerk, Chris Johnson, in the next three weeks and we will take them on board in the same way as we have the comments this afternoon. Thank you very much.