Standards: Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Monday 12th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) knows that I agree with nearly everything that she has said, and in particular what she said about the Commission. Indeed, further to the point that was made earlier by my fellow member of the Committee, the hon. Member for Warrington South (Andy Carter), I think we on the Standards Committee would like to look more at the independent complaints and grievance scheme. We were conscious that when she set it up, part of the rationale was that MPs should not get their sticky fingers on this area of the work, so I feel as if I have been charged by her to carry on looking at this area of work. She and I have had quite a few conversations about this and, as she knows, I have some concerns of my own. It is important that we get this absolutely right.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

We need to remember that the ICGS came into being because Members of Parliament were not trusted to adjudicate on these matters. If the Committee is going to look at this, will the hon. Gentleman join me in making an undertaking that in no respect are we going to interfere with the process or the adjudication of cases, but that we are possibly going to look at the governance of the process and the governance of the scheme as a whole?

[Chris Bryant]

Absolutely; I completely concur with every single word that the hon. Gentleman has said, not only just now but in his speech earlier. He and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire have made the point that we are in the business not only of setting up rules but of trying to change the culture. That is normally a more difficult process, and I will come on to that.

If I might irritate the House briefly, a constituent has asked me to remind everyone that we pronounce “Rhondda” as “Rhontha”, with the “dd” sounding like a “th”. I apologise to everybody.

Advent is, as we know, a penitential season, and it was the 35th anniversary of my ordination as a priest last week, so let me start with my traditional confession that I am no better than any other Member in the House, with not just feet of clay but ankles, calves and thighs. I have to say that, as I look round the Chamber every day, I see colleagues of different stripes and from different parties who have made considerable contributions, often way beyond the call of duty, to our national life. Politics really is an honourable profession, but it is also true that the public want us to do better.

I am painfully aware that 18 Members of this House have been suspended or have withdrawn for a day or more during this Parliament. That is quite a significant number. That may in part be because we are getting our act together, and that things that were formerly swept under the Pugin carpet are now dealt with not secretly and behind closed doors but through a proper process. I am also conscious that on top of that we have 15 Members in the independent group who have been suspended from their political parties, and justice sometimes comes through these processes very slowly. That is not fair to complainants, and it is not fair to the Members either. I want to make sure that Members are entitled to fairness. That is why I want us to have a set of rules that is clear, simple and unambiguous, and it genuinely worries me, as I know it does the whole Committee, that we now have 12 separate bodies that regulate Members of Parliament, and that we are now even considering creating a 13th. Whether that is right, I hate to think. I am sightly conscious, however, that other countries have it even worse. The House ethics manual in the United States of America consists of 456 pages, so I think we have been remarkably concise.

I am grateful to the Committee, and especially to its lay members: Mehmuda Mian, Tammy Banks, Rita Dexter, Michael Maguire, Paul Thorogood and Victoria Smith, plus the former members who played a part in getting us to this point, Arun Midha and Jane Burgess. This has been a long, iterative process, and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin)—who I sort of think of as the deputy Chair of the Committee—is absolutely right to suggest that the lay members often bring an insight, as we bring an insight to them, that results in a creative mix that is in the interests of the whole House.

Let me deal briefly with a few important changes that we are making as a result of today’s motion, because it is important that Members understand them. First, we are completely banning MPs from providing paid parliamentary advice, including providing or agreeing to provide services as a parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist. I believe that that always was, effectively, selling the title of MP on the open market.

Secondly, we are requiring a Member who takes on an outside role to obtain a written contract or a written statement of particulars detailing their duties. The contract, or a separate letter of undertaking, must specify that the Member’s duties will not include lobbying Ministers, MPs or public officials on behalf of the employer, or providing paid parliamentary advice, and that the employer may not ask them to do so. I think that is a very good defence for a Member who takes on outside earnings.

Thirdly, we are significantly tightening the rules on conflicts of interest resulting from outside interests by extending, from six months to 12 months, the period during which an MP cannot engage in lobbying on a matter in which they have a financial interest.

Fourthly, we are closing the “serious wrong” loophole that Owen Paterson sought to exploit. From now on, if a Member wants to claim this exemption when approaching a Minister or official, they must show that any benefit to their client is merely incidental to the resolution of the wrong or injustice. They must state at the outset that they are providing evidence of a serious wrong, and they may not make repeated approaches, otherwise it just becomes a loophole through which they can drive a coach and horses. I am glad the Government now agree with us on that.

We are also ending the false distinction between a Member initiating and participating in a proceeding and an approach to a Minister or official where they have an outside financial interest. It is not enough simply to register and declare an outside interest. It is surely axiomatic that a Member who is in receipt of outside reward or consideration should not seek to confer a benefit through parliamentary or political means on the person or organisation providing that outside reward or consideration. That is paid advocacy and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, it has been banned in some shape or form since 1695.

I now turn to the matters on which the Government disagree with the Committee. First, like the other members of the Committee, I simply do not understand the Government’s argument on the Nolan principles. They have got it wrong, and it is not in the interests of the House or of individual Members to stick with the Government’s position. Acting on the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which originated the Nolan principles, the Standards Committee drafted and consulted on more detailed descriptions of the individual words—selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership—as they apply specifically to Members of Parliament. Lord Evans, the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, told us:

“We strongly support the idea that although the seven principles remain central and important for standards issues right across the public realm, they need to be interpreted for particular institutions and organisations.”

That is why, for instance, the police have gone down precisely this route and produced their own set of descriptions.

More importantly, the Nolan principles need fleshing out in a parliamentary situation. What does “selflessness” mean in the context of Parliament? I would argue that a Member cannot be entirely selfless, unless they renounce any form of payment, unless they travel to London every single day from their constituency, wherever it is in the land, and unless they eschew any ambition whatsoever. But if they have no ambition, would they want to come to Parliament in the first place?

We have written descriptions to help explain not only to us but to our constituents and to members of the public, who might be the people complaining about our behaviour, precisely how those principles apply to how we do our business. Put simply, I think the Standards Committee’s version is more helpful to MPs and the public than the Government’s version.

Secondly, I think ministerial declarations are a no-brainer. I understand the arguments, but I do not think they particularly wash with the public. I start from three basic principles. First, Ministers in the House of Commons owe their position to their membership of the House, and they are answerable to the House. Secondly, all MPs should be treated equally under the rules. And thirdly, the public have a right to know, as close to real time as possible, of any financial interests that might reasonably be thought to influence an MP’s speeches, actions, decisions or votes. As Ministers actually make decisions, whereas most of us in the Chamber just talk about other people’s decisions, transparency is even more important for them, not less important.

Following those principles, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, the 1993 Select Committee on Members’ Interests—at around the time of cash for questions—concluded that

“Ministers are and should be subject to the House’s rules for the registration of financial interests in exactly the same way and to the same extent as all other Members of the House.”

That was the House rule under the Major Government. On the back of that, the new ministerial code in 1997, under Major and then under Blair, said that Ministers should register hospitality received in their capacity as a Minister in the House if it was

“on a scale or from a source which might reasonably be thought likely to influence Ministerial action.”

The 2007 ministerial code provided that ministers should register hospitality both with their permanent secretary and the House.

It was only in 2015—really quite late in the day—without any announcement, discussion or debate in the House, or any comment in a Select Committee report, that the rule was changed to grant Ministers in the code of conduct of this House an exemption from registering anything that they considered they had received in a ministerial capacity. The theory is, as the Leader of the House helpfully explained, that in exchange for that exemption, Ministers register through their Department any gifts, hospitality and travel that they have received in their ministerial capacity. That is published somewhere between three and nine months later, but without the value, which is a key point. That means that a member of the public cannot judge whether the hospitality was on a scale that might reasonably be thought likely to influence ministerial decisions.

The Committee, Transparency International, the Institute for Government, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the 1922 committee, the Labour Front Bench, the Scottish National party Front Bench, a substantial number of Ministers and I think that the system is manifestly unfair for the ordinary Back-Bench MP. They declare it all within 28 days and can be investigated and sanctioned if they fail to declare it correctly. However, the Minister’s declaration, without details, appears months later and cannot be investigated. It is not uncommon for a group of MPs—some of whom are Ministers and some are not—to go to the same event, which might cost more than £300. The Back-Bench MPs all declare it and the Daily Mail writes a story about it, but the Minister’s attendance is recorded nine months later and nobody notices. That seems somewhat unfair to me.

Incidentally, in answer to a point that the Leader of the House made, the Committee has said that the Government could set a lower threshold for further ministerial registrations if they wanted to—lower than £300 threshold in the House of Commons. However, it is worth pointing out that, though the ministerial threshold at the moment is said to be £140, since the Government do not publish the value of what is received, we have no idea whether that threshold is being met. I have been to events with Ministers that I have registered, but which the Minister has never subsequently registered anywhere.

I am not convinced that the system is working. I have a great deal of time for the Leader of the House. I love ministerial promises, especially when they come before Christmas and they talk about spring, but previous Leaders of the House have said to me that this would be sorted out by spring—a different spring. That spring has now sprung, and now we are into the winter. It seems extraordinary that Government Ministers will not be able to work out for themselves—not the Department —whether they have been to an event or received hospitality worth more than £300, and to register it in two minutes by sending a quick email to the registrar of interests in the House. I simply do not understand the logistical argument from the Leader of the House.

I urge colleagues to support my amendment, first, because the public expect full transparency and openness, and wonder what Ministers are trying to hide. Secondly, Ministers, in effect, now choose whether to register with the House or the Department. That does not make any sense at all. Thirdly, even if the Leader gets her way, the information will not all be in one place.

Fourthly, nobody presently or in future, so far as I can see, is expected to regulate or monitor the ministerial declarations. Fifthly, there are bizarre anomalies such as the previous Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), and the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), going to a Bond premiere, supposedly in their ministerial capacity because, as another Minister explained, James Bond exercises Executive functions. That argument simply undermines the whole system. I am not making that up, incidentally.

My next point is that this is the bare minimum that the public expect of us. I have had many emails, texts and helpful pieces of advice on Twitter saying that we should not be taking any hospitality or gifts whatsoever. If a person was working in local government or in most of the private sector today, they would have to declare everything. I do worry that sometimes our belief in our own exceptionalism, and Ministers’ belief in their own exceptionalism, grows with every extra day that we are an MP or a Minister.

Ministers have a habit of becoming ex-Ministers, but under the present rules, their registered interests do not come with them to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. So if we stick with the Government’s proposals, they could easily and inadvertently fall foul of the new paid lobbying rules, which now apply for 12 months after the interest is accrued. They might have accrued the interest when a Minister, but then end up not being a Minister any more and wanting to lobby Ministers. They would be precluded from doing that, but then they would not have registered the interest with the House. That is yet another reason why it is simpler—far, far simpler—to return to the system that we had from 1997 to 2015, instituted by both Conservative and Labour Governments on the back of the cash for questions crisis, of treating all MPs equally.

Points of Order

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify that it is changes in Government policy that are required to be announced to the House of Commons first? That does not muzzle the Government from making any statement about any matter, however serious, if there is no change of policy. I have read the Prime Minister’s statement, and I see no change of policy.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister actually used the word “militarily” for the first time. I think that is a very significant change of policy.

Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will be as brief as I possibly can. First, I would like to thank the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for the manner in which he chairs the Committee, for the way he presented the report, and for his diligence and the work he puts in to this Committee. It is a very arduous Committee, and it has a very heavy workload.

[Chris Bryant]

It was not meant to be.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is meant to be light duties, and I thought I could combine it with other things, but I have given up other things to stay on this Committee, because I think the work we are now doing on the revision of the code is so important.

I could touch on some of the points the hon. Gentleman made. I think he is right about the key being the transparency of conflicts of interests. We should not be denigrating people in this House who have outside interests. Some of them are unavoidable and some of them are by choice, but I firmly believe that this House is enriched by having people who stay on in Parliament, particularly later in their career, while involved with other interests. Being a senior barrister, for example, may take a Member away for weeks on end on very important cases, but having such people in this House means that we have such resources at our disposal much more readily than if these people felt they were squeezed out and were not welcome here. So I agree with him about the time point, and I agree with him about respectfulness.

I actually joined this Committee because I wanted to be involved in the revision of the code. This is ongoing work, and it has been going on for a very long time—since the previous commissioner first started work on the revision of the code. It is meant to happen every three years, but it has been delayed and delayed. So the report we are discussing actually incorporates the results of a great number of hours of work and thought.

The sad thing is that, if we just look at the Chamber today, we see there are a couple of handfuls of hon. Members here who are engaged with this debate. It has always been the biggest problem, in my view, that people only start engaging with the code when they are accused of something, they are worried about being accused of something or they are trying to steer clear of falling foul of the rules. There is not nearly enough discussion, reflection and understanding of why the code exists, of the principles and values behind the code, or indeed of how we should learn to talk about how we aspire to those principles.

I have always believed that the adjudication process is wanting. The compromise between handing the whole thing over to some independent judicial panel and leaving things as they are is to have an appeal akin to the independent expert panel that we have for the ICGS, but even that would have to be advised by a Member especially appointed for the purpose in serious and contested cases, to advise on how Parliament works and on the moral hazards of being a Member of Parliament.

I was mocked last week for suggesting that Members of Parliament need to learn more about this, but every profession in the world has training programmes to educate lawyers, doctors and other professional people on the moral hazards they will encounter in their career and how they should think about them. The General Medical Council website has a section on how to be a good doctor, and it sets out the principles. They are taught these things.

The problem we have in this House is that, culturally, we consider ourselves to be Members of a sovereign Parliament and to be beyond regulation and beyond question. Article 9 states that everything else is subsidiary to us. If anybody dares question us, well, we are elected, nobody dares gainsay us, and it is up to our voters. I am afraid no other profession in the country operates on that basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to all those who contributed to the debate and look forward to seeing the Government’s written submission when it comes. Of course, I hope the Leader of the House will come to give evidence to the Committee as well. We are interested in hearing from slightly more Members than were able to attend this afternoon, although I understand that lots of Members have constituency responsibilities and need to get to their constituencies, some of which, like mine, are even further away than Somerset.

It seems to me that we need to work through a few issues, one of which is whether we have specific descriptors for the Nolan principles. The Committee on Standards in Public Life—which, of course, originally came up with the Nolan principles—has advocated that, reviewed our version and was supportive of it. We also need to look at the question of respect, or respectfulness, and how that plays out. I have listened to lots of Members on that.

There may be a knotty problem that we still need to resolve in respect of whether Ministers should be treated differently. I remember the Leader of the House coming to our Committee and saying that he did not really believe that the separation of powers was an important principle, but I noticed that today he said it is—we sometimes choose our arguments according to the day of the week. My important principle is that all MPs should be treated fairly and equally under the rules. It would be for the benefit of most Ministers if all Members were treated exactly the same and had to declare everything in the same way.

It would be in the interests of the public if the House was able to make our current register much more readable and accessible. It is strange that we have to go to TheyWorkForYou to find out the history of our register of interests. We cannot go through the parliamentary system without looking at 20 different documents. If someone wants to look at ministerial registers, they have to look, every year, at 122 online documents. I just do not think that, in the end, that does us any favours as a House.

I repeat the point that I made earlier about the issue of telling the truth and lying. The Leader of the House used precisely the right word: it is a knotty one. Like many of the issues we on the Committee face, these issues are not susceptible to very simple answers. I get very cross and abandon my piety when people try to present—[Interruption.] Yes, I have often abandoned my piety; that is a good point. I get cross when people try to pretend that some of these issues are clear cut; they are not.

Finally, the House has heard from three other Committee members, and we work hard on all these issues, but the lay members bring to the Committee a fascinating outside look. Many of them are from professional backgrounds of which we know nothing and that makes for a much more effective Committee, so I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), who set it up in that way.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Committee on Standards’ Review of the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is there a means by which you could draw to the attention of the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), that Mr Speaker made a statement in which he explained

“there are means by which accusations of lying may be brought before the House”?—[Official Report, 2 February 2022; Vol. 708, c. 266.]

I do not think the SNP spokesman has read that statement or understood it.

Code of Conduct: Consultation

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Thursday 2nd December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I do not want to be too pious about it, but the House has a set of rules and seeks to enforce them, first, because all Members aspire to a set of values and principles, and because the public have a right to expect that all Members abide by the highest possible standards in public life. The Committee on Standards has been reviewing these rules for some time. It started doing so in both the 2015 and 2017 Parliaments, but the general elections cut short that work. We have continued to work on it during this Parliament and have had the benefit of some members who have been on the Committee much longer than I have, including some of the lay members, in putting together the report that we compiled last week.

Our report has recommendations that fall into two main sections: suggested changes to the substance of the rules; and questions about the process whereby the rules are enforced and adjudicated. On the substance, we are recommending the following: first, an outright ban on any Member acting as a paid parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist, which was a recommendation of the 2018 Committee on Standards in Public Life report on Members’ outside interests; secondly, the introduction of a new requirement that a Member must have a written contract for any outside work that makes it explicit that their duties cannot include lobbying Ministers, Members or public officials, or providing advice about how to lobby or influence Parliament, and that their employer will give them an undertaking not to ask them to do so; and thirdly, clarification of the criteria for the “serious wrong” exemption in the lobbying rules, to make clearer the risks of conflicts of interest and to put an end to this being used as a loophole.

Next, we propose a doubling of the six-month limit on reward or consideration restrictions in the lobbying rules to 12 months. Members will still be able to release themselves immediately from the restrictions by repaying any sums received in the relevant period if they wish to do so. In order to encourage Members to seek expert advice before acting, the Committee proposes a new “safe harbour” provision whereby Members cannot be found in breach of the rules if they sought and followed the advice of the House of Commons Registrar. This ensures that Members who seek advice from the Registrar or the House officials and follow the rules accordingly cannot accidentally find themselves in breach of the code of conduct.

We want to end the exemption whereby Ministers are not required to register with the Commons Registrar gifts and hospitality they receive in their ministerial capacity, so that other outside interests of all Members’, whether they are a Minister or not, can be found in a single place. We want to improve the transparency and searchability of the Commons Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and we have written to the House of Commons Commission to try to get it to speed up that process. We also want to add a new rule to the code of conduct prohibiting a Member from subjecting anyone to unreasonable and excessive personal attack in any medium.

In relation to the process of enforcing the rules and adjudicating cases, we have heard the complaints that there is no formal process of appeal at present. We were actually considering this for some time before the Owen Paterson case. We dispute that there is no process of appeal at the moment. Owen Paterson appealed the decision of the Commissioner for Standards to our Committee, and we took his evidence orally and in writing. Indeed, the Prime Minister also appealed the commissioner’s finding in a previous case, and we found in his favour and disagreed with the commissioner.

We have regularly received legal advice that our processes are article 6 compliant, but we accept that there are some blurred lines here. It might be better, for instance, to have a formal appeal process with established grounds of appeal, which might be more legalistic. It might be better if that process were akin to the existing structures for appeals under the independent expert panel that hears independent complaints and grievance scheme cases on sexual harassment and bullying. For that reason, we are engaging a senior judicial figure to advise us on improvements that could be made to provide greater clarity and to ensure that we are following best practice in embodying due process and guaranteeing a fair hearing to all Members and to complainants. We want to explore the pros and cons in detail before making any changes.

This report is not our final word on the subject. We are consulting on our recommendations and urge Members to send us their thoughts. It would be very helpful if there were a debate on the proposals early in the new year, because we may have got things wrong and we are happy to listen to Members. The closing date for written submissions is 20 January. There are some issues that we are considering separately, including the rules on Members’ use of parliamentary stationery, offices and facilities. I get the feeling from quite a lot of Members that it would be helpful if we provided new updated advice and recommendations in that field. We will be holding evidence sessions at the end of January and hope to produce a new draft code of conduct and guide to the rules for approval by the House by Easter. I am sure that the Government would then want to make time available for us to consider that.

Above all, we believe it right that the House should consider these matters in the round rather than piecemeal. The Government and the Opposition have both said that they believe it right that changes should proceed on a cross-party basis. We agree and believe that the best way of doing that is through the formal processes of the Committee.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his statement, for his calm chairmanship of the Committee through a particularly difficult period, and for the consensual way that he chairs the Committee. Does he agree that it is really now time for some calm deliberation? Although this was a unanimously agreed report, by no means are all the proposals in it unanimously supported by all the members of the Committee. They are proposals for consultation, and he is right to invite evidence. Will he join me in drawing attention to the very useful summary of issues that is on the Committee’s website? Perhaps we should circulate that as a link to all Members.

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that we set out to try to simplify the code of conduct? Does he think we are succeeding in simplifying? Or, by adding more, are we perhaps being drawn dangerously into a zero-sum game, where rules beget rules and more rules beget more rules in an effort to try to clarify, and in fact making it more complicated? I particularly draw attention to section 8 of the report, on “Training, advice and promotion”. That is nothing to do with the enforcement of the code but is about promoting understanding of the purpose of the code and how we can more easily comply with the spirit of the code and avoid falling foul of the rules. What does he think we should do next to pursue that part of our thinking?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the work that the hon. Gentleman has done on the Committee. It is right that we take our time to get this right, rather than rush at it like a bull at a gate, because there could be all sorts of unintended consequences, including from some of the recommendations we have come up with. We are very happy to listen. We will be circulating the consultation document to all Members, which I hope will prompt lots more Members to take part in the consultation. The worst thing of all would be that we change the rules and then everyone says next September, “Oh, I did not know we were doing that.” We want to ensure that people can understand them.

On simplification, our rules are quite complex, and Members are caught by lots of different sets of rules, as we lay out in the report, including those of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the Electoral Commission. I am aware that sometimes Members are advised on the use of stationery by a House official, because it is a House responsibility, but that may not be the eventual decision of the commissioner. That is unfair to a Member, so that is why we are introducing the safe harbour provision, which would mean that if someone has taken advice and followed the advice, then fair do’s; they cannot be found guilty of breaching the rules. However, I spent last weekend reading the House of Representatives code of conduct. It is 467 pages long. I think we have done well that ours is not quite as long as theirs.

House Standards System: Confidentiality and Sanctions

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

In all honesty, I have yet to meet a Member of this House who has not entered Parliament and politics out of completely honourable intentions. All of us want to change the world, make it a better place, improve the lot of our constituents, represent the communities in our patch and try to sort out individual issues for people as well as we can, and to tackle the injustices that beset humanity. Of course, that does not mean that we do not disagree all the time—that is a standard part of business—but nor does it mean, I think, that any one of us denigrates the honour with which other people hold their political opinions. Nor is it to say that we are not fallible—I see you smile, Mr Deputy Speaker; you are probably thinking, “Well, you certainly aren’t, Mr Bryant.” I hope people do not think I am being overly pious or returning to my former profession as a vicar when I suggest that we are all—including you, sir—flawed. Even the most statuesque of us has feet of clay—indeed, I have so many faults that I sometimes think that the only vaguely decent thing about me is that I know my failings rather well—which is why the House has a code of conduct, a behaviour code and a set of rules that apply to us all, which are constantly evolving.

On behalf of the Committee on Standards, let me say that in our current work on the review of the code of conduct, we are keen to make sure that we have a set of rules that is readily understandable by Members and by the public, and that upholds the Nolan principles, which are vital to restoring to public confidence in the way we do our business, and that we get the balance right between the fundamental principles and the specific rules, so that people are not endlessly being tripped up by what I can only call bureaucratic minutiae but getting away with much greater misdemeanours. We need to get that balance right—to make sure that there is justice for the individual Member and for the complainant, and that we do so as fairly as possible. It is from those fundamental principles, the Nolan principles, that all our attitudes and our behaviours should be drawn. The Leader of the House rightly referred to the desire, shared by everybody I believe, to change the culture in the whole parliamentary community, so that Parliament is always a place of respect and dignity, where people are able to do their job with honour.

Let me explain what the Committee wanted to achieve through our reports, which have led to the motions on the Order Paper. I thank the Leader of the House for the collaborative way in which he has approached this. I hope he does not mind when I say that it has taken a long time to get the motions on the Order Paper today. I think all of us would have preferred this to have happened sooner. The independent expert panel would like to have had the powers in place a little sooner. I am not making a big thing out of it; it would just be good if sometimes we were able to proceed more quickly.

First, we wanted to maintain the strictest possible confidentiality in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct that are being investigated by the commissioner and considered by the independent expert panel, so as to protect both the complainant and the Member. It is important to remember that in those cases there is always a specific complainant who is, potentially, a victim, and that person has as many rights in the process—nor more rights, but as many rights—as the individual Member who is complained about.

I want to confirm for the Leader of the House that it is perfectly possible and right that, if an individual Member wishes to seek advice from another Member or, for that matter, legal counsel, of course they are entitled to do so. In some cases, that would be their Whip. Whips sometimes have a terrible reputation, but in my experience, they are largely there for the better management of the House—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!] I am suddenly popular; it will not last—and often for the welfare and care of individual Members of the House, especially when they are going through difficult times.

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

I am a member of the hon. Gentleman’s Committee, and I work with him. An issue that has arisen in discussion with Members is that the confidentiality arrangements seem to preclude Members from discussing with or seeking the help of their Whip to advise them on the complaint that has been made about them. It seems to be the understanding of many hon. and right hon. Members that they cannot even tell their Whip or seek help and support from their Whip in dealing with a complaint against them. Could he explain what he thinks the position is on that?

[Chris Bryant]

It is precisely as the Leader of the House adumbrated—namely, the independent expert panel has made clear that Members can seek advice from another Member if that is what they wish to do. It is on a confidential basis. Of course they should not do it so as to game the system or to lobby individual members of the Committee, because that is expressly a breach of the code of conduct, but Members are perfectly entitled, and it makes absolute sense, to go to their Whip to talk about the matter if they wish to do so. I urge colleagues not to use this as a means of lobbying the whole House to get support, because that undermines the whole system.

We wanted also to end the anomaly whereby the commissioner can neither confirm nor deny that she is investigating a particular case, even when the Member concerned has announced that he or she has referred themselves to the commissioner. That obviously brings the whole system into a degree of disrepute. I know that some colleagues were anxious about this clause, but in the vast majority of cases, this will mean that the commissioner will be able to confirm that she is not investigating a Member. Far too many hares have started running in the press without anybody being able to clarify the situation—neither the commissioner nor the Member—and that is an injustice to everybody.

Thirdly, we wanted to ensure that when something has gone wrong, the independent expert panel and the Standards Committee have more options in terms of sanctions than just a slap on the wrist or decapitation, which is basically what it has felt like for far too long. There are more effective means of enabling people to change their habits—perhaps the habits of a lifetime—or the way that they work, their attitudes or their behaviour in a way that aligns with the code of conduct and the rules. That is precisely what the suite of options that we have laid out in our reports do for both ICGS cases, for the independent expert panel to use, and for non-ICGS cases, for the Standards Committee to use. The Leader of the House is right to say that anything that affects the core functions of an MP would only be decided on by the House in the end. The final vote, as it were, would be for the House.

We wanted also to be absolutely clear with Members and the public what we consider to be mitigating or aggravating factors in considering a particular case when the commissioner has brought a report to us. This seems to us a simple matter of natural justice. It is exactly the same as the courts, which have mitigating and aggravating factors when sentencing. For instance, perhaps it is obvious that a Member who committed the same breach of the rules on more than one occasion or who did so after already having been admonished by the House for a similar breach—a recidivist—would face a tougher sanction from the Committee the next time round, but we thought it important to make this clear.

Perhaps it is also obvious that a Member who made a completely inadvertent error, apologised and swiftly made recompense would be able to rely on the commissioner and the Committee to treat such a breach as on the less serious end of the spectrum. Likewise, perhaps it is obvious that a Member who refused to answer an inquiry from the commissioner or the registrar, who deliberately dragged matters out, who was rude and abusive during the process or who refused to co-operate with an investigation or inquiry would face a more serious sanction from the Committee. My honest advice to colleagues—I think every member of the Committee would say this, and it is advice I would give anyone in life—is that a heartfelt apology goes a very long way towards putting things right. I think the House and the public respect that when people are able to do it. I also urge colleagues, if they ever want advice, to go to the registrar or the commissioner because they are there to help.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I have had conversations with colleagues about the role of the commissioner, and that point needs to be underlined. A number of colleagues are wary of approaching the commissioner for advice or questioning what is going on, because they worry that this eminent person will be somehow in judgment over them or hold something over them. How should the Committee begin to break down the barriers between the commissioner and right hon. and hon. Members? That barrier obviously exists in a number of instances.

[Chris Bryant]

As the hon. and be-knighted Member knows—I mean that he is a knight of the realm—when we have produced our report on the code of conduct we will consult widely in the House and elsewhere. I hope that as many Members as possible will take part in that consultation process. My impression is that the rules are now far too complicated. There are bits and pieces here, there, and everywhere. It seems extraordinary that we have two pages of stationery rules in the 21st century. I think we make it too complicated for Members to do their work, and I hope Members will take part in that next process. Part of that will undoubtedly be getting to know the commissioner and the registrar better.

I will not refer to the amendment that was not selected, but I will refer to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). Whenever I see her speak, I am reminded of the fact that I lived in Northamptonshire when I was a youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, and I used to drive up the M1. Just as people arrive in her constituency a great big sign on the motorway says, “Welcome to Northamptonshire.” Two seconds later a sign says, “Keep your Distance.” It was there long before covid. She is right to say that there is an issue for constituents who might suddenly be left high and dry. There is also an issue for constituents when there is a change of MP, because all the casework disappears into a black hole, and has to by law. I wonder, however, whether that is a matter regarding privileges rather than standards. The Privileges Committee cannot take up issues without being expressly asked to do so by the House. If the House wanted to do that, I am sure we would rise to the challenge, and that may be the right course to take.

I do not have much more to say, but I assure the House of two things. First, the Committee takes its job extremely seriously. We seek to be as fair-minded as we can be. We set politics and partisanship aside the moment we enter the meetings, and we strive to have a system that is simple to understand and navigate. Over 20 years as an MP I have seen that the court of public opinion can be capricious, and often delivers great injustices to Members. We strive to ensure that nobody can say that of the Committee. Sir Stephen Irwin has already made absolutely clear that the independent expert panel has exactly the same determination. Having met Sir Stephen—our Committee wanted to work closely with him—I am confident that the panel will do a sterling job.

Secondly, the Officers of the House are there to help Members, not to hinder them. I know that colleagues sometimes get a bit anxious if they have to meet the Commissioner for Standards, as they think there is going to be some kind of dressing down, but that is very far from the truth. Both the Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, and the Registrar of Members’ Interests, Heather Wood, are ruthlessly impartial, and they constantly provide advice to individual Members on an entirely confidential basis. They do this every day of the week. Large numbers of Members go to see them and seek their advice, and I would urge colleagues to do so. Sometimes when we have been here a long time, we assume that we know the rules, but sometimes the rules change a little bit in the time that we have been here. It really is worthwhile, just occasionally, to pop along to see either Kathryn or Heather to get advice. Indeed, I am keen that we should end up with a system where, if a Member has sought advice from the Registrar or the Commissioner and adopted it, that would be a safe harbour for them—in other words, a system where anyone who had sought and adopted their advice would not get into trouble for it. That is not the situation at present, but that is where we would like to get to.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee: the lay members and the Members of this House who constitute the Committee. It has been a heavy workload over this last year, and I am really glad that these motions are on the table tonight. I also thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, as well as the leaders of the other political parties. I am not aware that Scottish National party Members are unhappy with the consultation that we have done with them. Finally, I would like to thank Sir Stephen Irwin and all the members of the Independent Expert Panel, who are already starting their work. After these motions have been adopted today, they will be able to do so more fully and with a greater sense of the direction of travel that we all want to go in.

Public Health

Debate between Bernard Jenkin and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I have to say that, although there are many points of merit in what the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has just raised, he has left the House and the public with the impression that he is happy for these restrictions to go through, he just will not vote for them. As for the idea that that is the kind of atmosphere the public want or that they will be encouraged to comply and co-operate when there is disagreement between the main parties on these fundamental issues that cannot be resolved in a sensible way, I think the public will be disappointed with that.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Well, there might be a different interpretation of the events just passed, might there not, which is that a lot of us are very concerned that the Prime Minister does not give the full story to the House and to the nation. The truth is that we are almost certainly going to see another lockdown in January—a full lockdown across the whole of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister say, “It is not what we want.” Nobody wants any of this—of course we do not—but we have to be honest and straightforward with the British people, and these measures today are not sufficient to the day.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I did not hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister make the promise that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that he made. I think my right hon. Friend is being perfectly honest with the House on this. I think it is very difficult, and I will come to that point, but I want to concentrate on what we agree about.

We all agree that we want to keep the R rate below 1, while minimising the restrictions on people’s lives and limiting the economic damage. If the R rate rises above 1, it becomes much too difficult to predict or control. It has a multiplier effect, even if the R rate remains constant. It is perfectly legitimate for colleagues on the Conservative Benches to press the Government for more clarity about why the Government believe the NHS is at risk of being overwhelmed. Data for much of the country does not suggest that at the moment, but it is not uncommon for hospitals to become overrun during the winter months, even without the addition of covid. It is also reasonable for Government to anticipate that the rising rate of covid infections would lead to exactly that in some areas, or much worse, unless we can keep R around or below 1; and that is all that these measures can be expected to achieve.

It is right to press the Government for more analysis of the economic impact of these measures, but maybe the Government were wrong to raise the expectation that they could provide that degree of certainty where so much uncertainty exists. Equally, it must be agreed that it is impossible to predict the economic consequences of a rapid spread of the virus. I understand the frustration of representing a low-virus constituency included in a tier 2 area, and the need to provide the right support to business that is being badly hit, but such frustrations are not about alternatives to the fundamentals of this policy, which I believe the Opposition are trying to avoid.

The real question—it is also a legitimate question—is will the tiers be enough. I hope that tier 2 will keep Essex below the R of 1, but there is doubt: tier 2 did not work before. We must look upon this period as a further period of transition to when vaccines begin to become available. We should look ahead at the challenges that the vaccine programmes will present, and give thought to how reassurance is provided that the vaccine that each person is invited to accept is right for that person. In the meantime, the challenge is to ensure that we can move down the tiers, and not just into tier 1, but to remain in tier 1, even if it takes time for the vaccines to become effective and to be rolled out at scale. That will depend on how we all behave, the example that we set, and what we do to encourage confidence and co-operation with test and trace operations.

There is much to ask the Government that time does not allow today—about how to improve trace and isolate operations, particularly at local level, and about how the community volunteer hubs could help support people who should isolate. That is vital work now.

The last thing I want is to vote for these restrictions today, but until there are better alternatives we have no alternative, and should support them. I am sorry that Her Majesty’s Opposition are trying to avoid that truth. The Government have also the opportunity to learn by continuing to listen, and to gain public confidence from that.