Nolan Principles

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

First, I apologise to the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for missing her opening remarks. I was rushing to the Chamber from another meeting.

I very much welcome a debate about the Nolan principles. To start with a point that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) made at the beginning of his speech, it is indeed surprising and perplexing that we would regard nearly 100% of the colleagues in this Chamber—from whichever party—as careful, diligent and morally upstanding people. There is a tiny minority who we perhaps do not trust, but basically, although we might not be able to remember the seven principles of public life by heart, that is the way we want to live our lives. That is the example we want to demonstrate in the work we do, yet the more paraphernalia created around the enforcement of standards in the House of Commons, the worse the reputation of politicians seems to become. I think that is because we think of ourselves as legislators, and the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland fell into that trap: “We need more rules about this. We need more rules about that. We need rules to address this.”

I spent the previous Parliament on the Standards Committee, and I participated in producing the report that came out in May 2022. That report was a complete revision of the House of Commons code of conduct, and was trying to start a different conversation. One witness, who was a Chief Whip of a major political party, told us in evidence, “The seven principles are quite simple, and if you do not understand them, you should not be in public life.” On the face of it, they are very simple, but is navigating conflicts of interest as a Member of Parliament simple? We all have them; whether we are paid as an outside director or sponsored by a trade union, everybody has conflicts of interest. What about the conflicts of interest—even if they are not necessarily declarable—between our parties’ programmes and the interests of our constituents? We all have to deal with conflicts of interest.

The image we were given in one piece of evidence from the Westminster Abbey Institute was that we are trying to navigate our way across a stormy sea, with lots of conflicting pressures and priorities, and it is not always easy to decide what to do in a given set of circumstances. If any hon. Member present thinks it has been easy, they probably do not realise what they have stumbled into. Yes, we want transparency, and yes, there need to be rules, but the rules should not be the culture. If you go into the Tea Room and talk about the House of Commons code of conduct, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you find—like everyone else—that people discuss how to stay clear of the rules. That is what the conversation appears to be about; it does not tend to be about how to deal sincerely and honestly with conflicts.

The problem with the way in which the House of Commons has set up the adjudication of the code is that it tends to be a very legalistic process. Anyone who has been under the cosh of an investigation by the Commissioner for Standards finds first that they have got nobody to talk to. I have recommended that we should split the role of the commissioner, with somebody to advise and counsel Members of Parliament about conflicts of interest and the code, and somebody—preferably a former High Court judge—to adjudicate.

Of course, I have no criticism to make of the present commissioner, but we could upgrade the juridical process of adjudicating the code as we have done for appeals, which are now presided over by a High Court judge and a panel in a much more strictly judicial process. The advantage of that is a High Court judge is used to adjudicating: judging evidence and facts and coming to a conclusion.

[Dr Rushworth]

I genuinely think that the hon. Gentleman’s is a voice worth listening to on this. Does he not feel that the growth in rules has been a response to the scandals we have had rather than the producer of them? Is he arguing for less regulation or that we have just got the wrong rules and system in place?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I am not arguing for abolition of the code or anything like that. I am arguing for a system that recognises that conflicts of interest inevitably arise and have to be handled. The system should create a supportive environment for Members of this House to discuss and explore the dilemmas they are confronted with, openly and frankly and without fear. That does not exist at the moment.

I also think that the margin of appreciation in interpreting the rules should be much more forgiving. The present commissioner has made it clear that that is not his method, and indeed the House of Commons resolutions do not steer him in that direction. We might think that the guidance accompanying the rules was just guidance, but the official advice from the House Service is that, because it has been approved by the House, along with the code of conduct rules, it has equal force as the law of Parliament. I do not think that is what Parliament really understood when it voted the guidance through, or each time it does so. I would like to see a more flexible and forgiving system: one where there is a more open conversation about the dilemmas we face.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing the debate. Trust in politics is one of the big challenges of our time. It has never been particularly high, but at the moment, Britain’s trust in politics is among the lowest in western Europe. There are obviously many theories as to why that might be, but, from my experience before coming to this place of working on open government in over 70 countries, I recognise that there are ways in which we could reverse the trend. That is part of what this debate is about. My strong belief is that it is about a combination of transparency and accountability plus delivery on the issues that our constituents care about. Those two things do not need to be in tension, although some try to argue that; they can be complementary.

The big opportunity coming up for the Government is the White Paper on rewiring the state. I am personally very excited about that, because of the term “taking on unaccountable government”. I hope that there is space in that vision to articulate why open government, transparency and opportunities for public participation lead to better decisions and better government. It is about ensuring that citizens have a voice, and that the state is accountable for decisions and failures are learned from and not covered up.

I was therefore really glad that the Prime Minister committed to working with me on justice for Grenfell—a tragedy that would not have happened had the Nolan principles been followed by the leadership of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I agree with the chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) that more needs to be done on local government. That is an important commitment in the Government’s anti-corruption plan.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror and disgust at what the Moore-Bick inquiry has uncovered about the conduct of quite a number of bodies and people that led to the Grenfell tragedy. It was a system failure, and the question of who takes responsibility for system failures is much more important. The problem with just applying rules is that they do not necessarily address system failures, because they are about culture, attitude and behaviour. That is what we need to address and demonstrate leadership on, as we are figures in public life.

[Joe Powell]

I agree that culture is a huge part of this. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is belatedly undergoing what it calls a culture review, but I fear that it may fall into the category of reviews that may not necessarily lead to the change we want, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Let us see what happens; I want to keep an open mind.

I also support the idea of a national oversight mechanism —I know the Cabinet Office is doing work on this. If we are going to spend time, energy and resources on inquests and inquiries, it is important that the recommendations are tracked and monitored; otherwise, it feels to me that we may defeat the point. Of course, the Hillsborough law—the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which I hope will become an Act very soon—may be a big step forward on the duty of candour.

I want to cover two areas. First, there is a huge amount to welcome in the Representation of the People Bill, particularly on foreign money in politics and the Rycroft recommendations, and we will shortly get that Bill back from the other place. There were so many good suggestions that could not find their way into the Bill, which is why the Government were right to set up a task and finish group. I hope the ideas that come through that group will see the light of day, potentially in future legislation. I really welcome the Bill, but I do not want to lose the ideas that we could not get through this time. I really hope that when the Electoral Commission looks at spending caps during the regulated period, it will take an expansive view and think about whether we need to have wider ones, given the nature of modern campaigning, which is essentially permanent.

The second main area that I want to cover is lobbying reform. The July report from the Ethics and Integrity Commission was a really thorough and good piece of work that contained lots of recommendations about lobbying. At the moment, the public record captures only 4% of lobbyists, because it is restricted to consultant lobbyists, and information is captured in disparate databases across Government, making it hard to track and make useful. We know from Greensill and the covid contracts that modern lobbying happens in lots of different ways, not just through formal meetings.

This is not about policing who the Government meet, because they should be meeting businesses, stakeholders and so on. It is about having the right to know what voices are informing major decisions, so that the public can make a judgment on whether the requirement to consult widely has been met. An initial step would be to clean up the number of different lobbying databases that we have, and to make them easier to understand and view. The report calls for legislation, and I asked at Cabinet Office orals a few weeks ago whether the Government were open to legislation. The Minister confirmed that they were, so I hope that is something we will see.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, it has too often taken a crisis to create the urgency to act on matters of ethics and integrity in politics. We can all name them: Greensill, the previous ambassador to the United States, the covid contracts, Owen Paterson and, of course, the multiple ongoing investigations by different bodies into Reform UK’s funding and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have informed him that I would say this. We now have an opportunity to create a reset moment for standards in public life, and the rewiring the state White Paper is a great opportunity to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

I am always willing to learn from comparative analysis of what works elsewhere, including in other jurisdictions across the United Kingdom.

The Government have it in their power to bring about a culture shift, and the time to do so is now. Not all of the EIC’s recommendations require primary legislation. There is recommendation 8, which is that the Government simply refuse to meet any organisation seeking to lobby them unless that organisation is on the lobbying register. Recommendation 10 on having one digital repository for transparency releases is a simple fix. How about recommendation 13, which is that transparency releases include informal communication channels, including the likes of WhatsApp?

If we are to address the deficiencies in our system, I urge the Government to find time to overhaul the register of consultant lobbyists so that we have a truly representative register that closes the loopholes I have mentioned, that empowers the regulator to levy significant fines for systemic offences of the registration requirement, that is properly resourced, and that documents interactions between the Government and organisations in sufficient detail that it serves as more than a mere box-ticking exercise.

Let me turn to MPs’ outside employment, colloquially known as second jobs. This Government pledged in the 2024 manifesto that they would

“task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country.”

In November 2024, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) tasked the Committee on Standards to look at how

“to conduct further work into how changes to the rules on outside interests and employment might be implemented”.

The Standards Committee opened its inquiry on 8 January 2025 and took oral evidence in public through to July 2025, yet—more than a year later—no report has been published, and no recommendations have been forthcoming, and no action has been taken in Government due to this delay. Despite my writing to the Standards Committee requesting an update, I have yet to receive a substantive response.

Having advised—for the good part of more than a decade, in my old job before being elected to this place —on conflicts of interest, and on outside employment and related matters, I have been incredibly patient and so have other Members of this House. The Standards Committee has a broad remit and does good work, but after almost 24 months of waiting for a report, after my mentioning this matter previously in the House and after writing to the Standards Committee, there seems to have been no progress. I said in Westminster Hall more than four months ago that this House is moving at a glacial speed. My fear is that the glaciers will have melted by the time the report is published. The lack of progress is simply not good enough.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

May I suggest that the questions about lobbying and Members’ outside interests might have turned out to be a little bit more complicated than the Labour manifesto considered them to be? May I also suggest that the hon. Gentleman approaches the Chair of the Standards Committee? The Chair is a Member of Parliament, so he is not difficult to find. We are in the same House—there are only 650 of us. May I suggest he does that, rather than getting on his high horse and criticising the Committee because he does not know what it is doing?

[Phil Brickell]

As the hon. Gentleman may have heard, I have approached the Chair of the Standards Committee and I have followed the proceedings that the Standards Committee has been undertaking over the past two years. I have not named any Member in this Chamber. I have approached the Chair and I have had correspondence, so I think the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) will know that I have been following these matters very closely, suffice it to say. As I said, I worked on conflicts of interest in the private sector for more than a decade, so I have sufficient expertise to be able to talk at length about this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Forgive me.

Whatever the outcome of that case, there will be many people outside this place who have questions about £5 million passing quietly to a politician. Integrity means not placing ourselves under obligation to those who might seek to influence us. The public are entitled to ask what would be expected in return for a sum of money on that scale, and whether it is merely a gift.

Let us take the situation of the former ambassador to the United States of America—a man with a long history of controversy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is still alluding to the case you told her she could not discuss. I urge you to call her to order. She said she would obey the rules.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that the hon. Lady can remember my previous two rulings on this. I am sure that she understands that it is imperative that we all obey the rules in this House.