Committee on Standards: Members’ Code of Conduct Review

Bryant discusses the need to address issues such as lying in Parliament, conflict of interests, transparency of financial disclosures, and rules around second jobs. He notes that current rules are too opaque and unequal, particularly when it comes to hospitality declarations by Ministers compared to Back-Bench Members.

Asked about transparency in relation to non-financial interests which may set up a conflict of interest for Members.

Indicated assent to Kate Green's intervention but no further contributions provided.

Asked about the income generated from writing books and whether there is an understanding that people working in business can bring valuable experience to the House.

Stressed the need for a clear distinction between declaring when one has an outside interest versus having the activity or interest banned.

Mr. Jenkin thanked the Chair of the Committee for his work on the revision of the code, emphasising its importance. He agreed with the need for transparency regarding conflicts of interest and argued that outside interests enrich parliamentary discussions. Mr. Jenkin noted the ongoing nature of the revision process and lamented low engagement among MPs unless they face accusations. He suggested an appeal system similar to the ICGS expert panel. Mr. Jenkin proposed a cultural shift towards discussing values rather than rules, advocating for more training on moral hazards in politics.

It is a pleasure and an honour to speak after such experienced Members... If we do not act and improve our standards, it will spread across all our politics and fuel cynicism and distrust about all of us in public life.

I am not on the Committee. I have been on earlier renditions of it... The key has to be transparency, not complexity.

Chamberlain supports strengthening the standards followed in the House. She highlights a specific rule regarding Members' ability to vote on matters directly concerning them, citing the Owen Paterson case as an example of this rule's inadequacy. She suggests formalizing the rule that a Member should not be able to vote on their own disciplinary proceedings.

Leadsom acknowledges the importance of holding MPs accountable and maintaining high standards of conduct. She emphasises the need for clarity in constituents' understanding of MPs' roles and responsibilities, advocating for a broader review to clarify whether MPs act as delegates or representatives. She also supports the independent complaints and grievance scheme's aim to change workplace culture but criticises its implementation issues.

Mr Fletcher thanked members and apologised for his absence due to a back injury. He expressed disappointment that the debate lacked context regarding the report's history and highlighted the committee's disagreement on several proposals. He was against banning paid parliamentary advice, consultancy or strategy services as he believed it was unworkable and unhelpful. He supported swift investigations and prioritising resources for them, and emphasised the need to ensure fairness in processes. Mr Fletcher also cautioned against some proposals being misunderstood as a limitation of freedom of speech when that was not intended. Lastly, he disagreed with bespoke Nolan principles and the ministerial register of interests.

Mr Carter highlighted the importance of simplifying rules for MPs to follow and ensuring training and guidance at all stages of their experience in Parliament. He agreed with banning second jobs but recognised exceptions, such as maintaining professional qualifications or contributing expertise from different disciplines. Mr Carter supported proper transparency regarding Members' involvement with external organisations and emphasised that constituents ultimately decide on the work undertaken by MPs. Lastly, he expressed concern over conventions surrounding media comments and impartiality within the Committee.

Congratulated the hon. Member for Rhondda on his work, emphasising that our standards are crucial as they reflect how electors see us; criticised the Government's attempt to undermine the Standards Committee by supporting an amendment to establish a Select Committee with a Government majority and their attacks on the Commissioner for Standards; supported the status quo of the commissioner investigating and the committee considering without appealing; agreed with the proposal that second jobs require written contracts detailing duties but not including lobbying Ministers.

Acknowledged the debate's positive spirit, regardless of disagreements; praised the Committee on their hard work and recommendations for more engagement and training; supported an outright ban on MPs acting as paid parliamentary advisers or consultants; emphasised the need to clarify criteria for serious wrong exemption in lobbying rules; stressed the importance of consistency between standards for MPs and Government Ministers; called for strengthening of ministerial code alongside the system.

Agrees with the high quality of contributions in the debate and recognises the work done by the Committee on Standards. Emphasises that the Members’ code of conduct should remain consistent, applying universally to all holders of public office including Ministers. He argues against adding a principle of ‘respect’ as it would undermine the universality of ethical principles. Discusses the scope of the code and social media use; suggests political parties have their own codes of conduct instead. Supports the work on outside interests but warns that placing limits on MPs' activities could change their role substantially, possibly requiring legislation.

Questions why the public should not be informed about Ministers receiving hospitality in the same manner as ordinary MPs. Points out inconsistencies in transparency between Ministers and other MPs regarding such matters.

Asks what the difference is between an Opposition spokesman attending events under House of Commons rules versus a Minister doing so under ministerial ones, questioning the necessity for separate codes of conduct.

Raises a point of order regarding an earlier statement made by Mr Speaker about accusations of lying, directed at SNP member Pete Wishart.

Asks for clarity on statistics provided by the Prime Minister in a previous statement regarding crime reduction, highlighting discrepancies between Home Office data and UK Statistics Authority information. Seeks guidance from Deputy Speaker on obtaining corrections.

Suggests having a Question Time session dedicated to statistics to address concerns raised about their accuracy and presentation by various Ministers.