Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministerial Statement

Code of Conduct: Consultation

02 December 2021 · 11 other contributors

Opened by Chris Bryant Lab Rhondda and Ogmore

Standards & Ethics

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Chris Bryant raised concerns about code of conduct: consultation in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.

Key points

  • The Committee on Standards has proposed reforms in two areas: substance of rules and process for enforcement.
  • The proposed reforms include an outright ban on paid parliamentary roles outside the House and clearer guidelines against lobbying.
  • The report suggests doubling restrictions on rewards or considerations to twelve months and improving transparency for financial interests registration.

How the debate unfolded

MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.

Government Statement

Chris Bryant

The Committee on Standards, after reviewing rules since 2015, has proposed reforms in two areas: substance of rules and process for enforcement. It calls for an outright ban on paid parliamentary roles outside the House, clearer guidelines against lobbying, a doubling of restrictions on reward or consideration to twelve months, transparency improvements for financial interests registration, prohibition on unreasonable personal attacks, and fair appeal processes. The report also suggests encouraging expert advice through a 'safe harbour' provision where members cannot be found in breach if they follow Registrar’s advice. It sets the consultation period until 20 January with plans for a new code by Easter.

Other contributors (11)
  • Bernard Jenkin Con Harwich and North Essex

    Question

    Does Chris Bryant agree that it is time for calm deliberation on the proposals, even though they were unanimously agreed? Does he think the aim to simplify the code of conduct is being achieved or are more rules complicating things further?

    Minister reply

    Chris Bryant acknowledged the need for careful consideration and invites evidence. He notes the complexity of current rules involving multiple sets and introduces a 'safe harbour' provision for advice from officials. While acknowledging the length of US House Rules, he believes they have simplified effectively.

  • Wendy Chamberlain Lib Dem North East Fife

    Question

    What consideration has been given to putting the convention that Members should not vote on motions relating directly to them into Standing Orders?

    Minister reply

    Chris Bryant suggests this could be a relevant change to Standing Orders and welcomes recommendations from Wendy Chamberlain.

  • Bill Cash Con Stone

    Question

    Questions the need for full consultation before judicial figures are appointed to advise the Committee, citing natural justice and fair trial principles.

    Minister reply

    Disagrees with Bill Cash, noting that Select Committees typically decide who they appoint to advise them. He suggests that limiting grounds of appeal might be seen as disadvantageous by Members.

  • Ian Mearns Lab Durham University

    Question

    Asks for clarification on whether the Government will provide time for a debate early in the new year, suggesting it should not come from Backbench Business Committee.

    Minister reply

    Suggests that debate should take place within Government time to ensure motions can be tabled and passed efficiently.

  • Peter Bone Con Wellingborough

    Question

    Supports the proposal for firm advice from advisors, but raises concerns about lack of independent right of appeal in rare cases where a Member feels they have been wronged.

    Minister reply

    Acknowledges Peter Bone's concern and notes that historically, decisions on suspension or expulsion rest with the House itself rather than an independent body.

  • Ruth Cadbury Lab Brentford and Isleworth

    Question

    Highlights the distinction in declaring gifts or hospitality received by Ministers compared to other Members, suggesting it is illogical.

    Minister reply

    Agrees with Ruth Cadbury's point about the disparity between Ministers' and MPs' obligations regarding declarations of interests.

  • Mark Francois Con Rayleigh and Wickford

    Question

    Criticises a proposal in the report that could be interpreted as curbing free speech in parliamentary proceedings, arguing it risks breaching article 9 of the Bill of Rights.

    Minister reply

    Disagrees with Mark Francois's interpretation, asserting that no parliamentary proceeding should be questioned outside of Parliament.

  • Peter Grant SNP Glenrothes

    Question

    Welcomes proposals for declaring Ministers' interests but questions whether there are opportunities to further regulate ministerial conduct independently.

    Minister reply

    Acknowledges the need for a full debate and notes that while he has views on the ministerial code, it is not within the Committee's purview.

  • Pete Wishart SNP Perth and Kinross-shire

    Question

    Mr. Wishart cautions against conflating sexual harassment with conduct on propriety, urging the minister to consider this distinction in any appeals process. He expresses concern that staff may be confused about these differences.

    Minister reply

    Sir Stephen Irwin's expert panel advises a mix of legal experts for sexual harassment and bullying cases but suggests including laypeople and MPs for issues such as parliamentary stationery and paid lobbying. The minister promises to clarify the appeal process to ensure everyone is confident in it.

  • Thangam Debbonaire

    Question

    Ms. Debbonaire congratulates the Committee on its work and asks specifically about paragraph 120, which deals with accepting gifts from foreign donors. She seeks clarification on whether there should ever be circumstances where a Member can accept such items.

    Minister reply

    The minister notes that in the USA, no member of Congress is allowed to accept anything from a foreign Government, including visits. He expresses concern about the potential for foreign powers seeking to lobby through lavish entertainment and suggests it might be better for Parliament to pay for its own visits.

Shadow Comment

Bernard Jenkin

The hon. Gentleman's statement was acknowledged positively, but concerns were raised about potential over-complication of the rules. The Committee's aim to simplify the code is questioned as more rules might add complexity. Bernard Jenkin emphasised the importance of promoting understanding and compliance with the spirit of the code through training and advice.

Get updates like this by email
▸ Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy