← Back to House of Commons Debates
Standards in Public Life
07 June 2022
Lead MP
Lindsay Hoyle
Chorley
Speaker
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Standards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 41
At a Glance
Lindsay Hoyle raised concerns about standards in public life in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
Reminds the House of the importance of good temper and moderation in proceedings as per 'Erskine May', stressing that accusations of lying are not permitted unless it is a distinct motion about the conduct of another Member.
Angela Rayner
Lab
Ashton-under-Lyne
The motion calls for urgent implementation of all recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, criticising the Prime Minister's actions and his refusal to adhere to high ethical standards. It also points out that transparency has been eroded under this Government while Labour's previous government had legislated to clean up politics.
Michael Ellis
Con
The Government fully recognise the importance of the ministerial code and its role in maintaining standards in public life. The Ministerial Code was created by a Conservative Prime Minister, Sir John Major, 30 years ago, and has been an evolving document since then. It is now being revised and strengthened under this Prime Minister to reflect changes and updates. The Government have drawn on the advice of both the independent adviser on ministerial interests and the Committee on Standards in Public Life when revising the code.
Asked the Minister whether the Government will implement all recommendations from the 'Standards Matter 2' review as a matter of urgency, as the motion calls for.
Margaret Beckett
Lab Co-op
Observed that there is a fatal flaw in the Minister's remarks about giving greater freedom to the independent adviser because everything still depends on the Prime Minister’s decision.
Meg Hillier
Lab Co-op
Hackney South and Shoreditch
Compared recent actions by current Ministers to those of previous Labour Governments, suggesting that under their governance, ministers were sacked for lesser infractions than have been seen recently.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Suggested that the Prime Minister is the ultimate arbiter in whether a minister should be dismissed under the code, undermining any claim to independence.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Asked if the code should stipulate that Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament must offer their resignation, regardless of whom they are misleading.
Dwyfor Meirionnydd
Proposed legislation to make lying in politics illegal to show that the truth matters, regardless of sanctions under current codes and standards.
Valerie Vaz
Lab
Walsall and Bloxwich
Asked whether breaking the law is a breach of the ministerial code and what the consequences would be if it were determined that the Prime Minister had broken the law.
Pointed out a serious omission in the Prime Minister's response to the independent adviser, which failed to address leadership failings at No.10 and the Cabinet Office as identified by Sue Grey.
Hilary Benn
Lab
Leeds South
Argued that the growing lack of confidence in the Prime Minister's integrity undermines his office and our democracy, citing the need for leadership with integrity.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Asked if parliamentary privilege should still be considered an absolute principle in light of recent reforms, and questioned why Prime Ministers are treated differently from other Members when it comes to independent investigation.
Inquired about the checks and balances if the Prime Minister can refuse an independent investigation or break rules in future, citing potential for abuse of power.
Bury South
Said that the binary choice is between what is right and wrong, questioning why the Minister defends indefensible positions when many colleagues do not.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
Asked if the Paymaster General has been supplied with sufficient information to avoid inadvertently misleading Parliament in his defence of Government actions.
Brendan O'Hara
SNP
Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber
The SNP will support the motion to implement recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life due to concerns over the ministerial code's lack of efficacy under this Government. The Prime Minister's recent changes to the ministerial code are seen as self-serving rather than a genuine attempt at reform. O'Hara emphasises the need for an Independent Adviser who can initiate investigations and publish findings, contrasting with the current scenario where such actions require PM approval. He criticises the Prime Minister for altering rules to avoid scrutiny from the Privileges Committee inquiry, highlighting this as evidence of weakening parliamentary standards and public trust.
John Penrose
Con
Brighton Kemptown
Welcomed the motion and highlighted the importance of upholding standards in public life as enshrined by the Nolan principles. Emphasised that cross-party agreement on these principles is essential, though noted some reservations about certain aspects of the report's recommendations. Supported many of the 34 recommendations proposed but expressed concerns over a few, particularly regarding the statutory footing of some bodies versus the traditional constitutional principle where the Prime Minister appoints and dismisses Cabinet members. Proposed changes to strengthen the role of the independent adviser on the ministerial code by allowing them to issue advice without fear of resignation if not followed, and suggested that Parliament should have the authority to sit in judgment on breaches of the ministerial code by the Prime Minister.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
Agreed with John Penrose's statements regarding the independent adviser on the ministerial code, suggesting that Lord Geidt felt the Prime Minister had breached the ministerial code but could not state it explicitly due to his role.
Clarified for John Penrose that the Committee on Standards in Public Life's recommendations do not give the independent adviser the power to decide whether a Minister comes and goes, rather they advise on breaches with decisions ultimately made by the Prime Minister.
Margaret Beckett
Lab
Derby Hall
Welcomes the initiative of calling this debate and appreciates the terms of the motion. Declares interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life since November 2013, emphasising that she is not speaking officially for the committee. Expresses sympathy towards the independent members of the committee who face heavy workload due to reduced numbers and resources under David Cameron's premiership. Criticises the decision to weaken penalties for breaching the ministerial code and highlights concerns about the independence of the Independent Adviser’s role despite improvements made by the Government. Raises issues regarding voter participation, media independence, public appointments, and the broader impact on democracy and institutions, emphasising the need for independent scrutiny to maintain high standards in public life.
Danny Kruger
Reform
East Wiltshire
I echo the importance of the motion and the committee's report. I disagree with Margaret Beckett on the changes made by the Government to the code, as they are significant but not as exciting as she suggests. The ministerial adviser can now initiate investigations independently, maintaining independent scrutiny at the core of the code. Criticisms miss the mark; the Prime Minister remains accountable under these changes. The Institute for Government has praised the changes and called for honesty in debate about them. Labour's suggestion for a single ethics commissioner is dangerous, undermining democracy by giving an unelected individual god-like power to judge Ministers' morals.
Clive Efford
Lab
Eltham and Chislehurst
The timing of the changes undermines their credibility, as they coincide with the investigation into the Prime Minister's conduct. The industrial scale of breaches by No. 10 officials, including the PM himself, necessitates scrutiny to ensure consistency between statements made in this House and rules applied at the time. The photograph of the garden party and the PM's indoor gathering must be considered alongside adherence to social distancing guidelines. The Prime Minister claimed on 1 December that all guidance was followed completely in No. 10, which is inconsistent with subsequent revelations.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
It is a crying shame that we do not have more speakers on the Government Back Benches today, because the contributions we heard from the hon. Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) have been good and thoughtful... The report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life should be taken as a whole. It is not something to cherry-pick, unless of course there is some overwhelming, pressing reason as to why that should not be the case.
Marie Rimmer
Lab
St Helens South and Whiston
Standards in public life matter—they mattered in the past, they will matter in the future, and they matter now. The Nolan principles were established in 1995 to set the expected standards... It is time to clean up politics.
Richard Thomson
SNP
Central Ayrshire
Echos the disappointment of the lack of Government participation in the debate on standards. Emphasises the need for a written constitution, proportional voting system, and an independent constitutional court. Criticises the current standards framework due to its inability to hold ministers accountable effectively, particularly highlighting instances where breaches have gone unpunished. Urges for immediate implementation of all recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life report without deviation.
Justin Madders
Lab
Ellesmere Port and Bromborough
Mr Madders highlighted the fragility of liberal democracy and argued against the erosion of standards, accountability, transparency, and conventions. He warned that continual abuse of rules could damage public trust in politics. Mr Madders stressed the importance of leading by example to uphold democratic principles.
Mike Kane
Lab
Wythenshawe and Sale East
Mr Mike Kane supported his colleague's argument, referencing St Thomas More’s quote about rules being there to protect us. He underscored the importance of this debate in terms of future Administrations and Parliaments.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Agrees with the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston that rules matter, expressing disappointment at the lack of Government Members participating in the debate. Expresses anger about the Prime Minister's actions breaching public trust and undermining standards expected from a Prime Minister. Emphasises the importance of Select Committees like PACAC (Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee) for scrutiny of Government. Mentions ongoing inquiries on propriety and ethics, highlighting Lord Geidt’s report which criticises the “low level of ambition” in upholding ministerial code integrity. Critiques the new introduction to the Ministerial Code as inadequate, stating that it undermines public trust in accountability mechanisms.
Congratulates Angela Rayner on her speech and motion. Accuses the Government of being drenched in dirty money and dodgy deals, amending the ministerial code to suit themselves, and failing to uphold integrity and accountability expected from elected leaders. Withdraws the use of 'lying' but maintains that checks and balances are crucial for preventing a lawbreaker from remaining Prime Minister.
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
The Labour party is debating the standards and conduct of the Prime Minister, criticising his behaviour as a distraction that prevents progress on other critical issues such as the cost of living and NHS waiting times. Toby Perkins emphasises that under this Prime Minister, fundamental rule of law is being compromised, affecting cross-party unity on basic democratic principles. He commends William Wragg for resigning due to breaches in the ministerial code. The speaker also supports recommendations from a committee regarding graduated sanctions and increasing the independence of the adviser but criticises the current approach where the Prime Minister's confidence determines outcomes. Perkins highlights that political motives can undermine public trust, advocating for clear rules and independent arbiters to restore public confidence.
Alex Sobel
Lab Co-op
Leeds Central
Alex Sobel agrees with Toby Perkins regarding the changing of rules in the ministerial code which has led to a 'levelling down' of standards in public life. He argues that self-marking by the Government is unacceptable and suggests the need for an independent commission on ethics and standards in public life to ensure accountability.
Matt Western
Lab
Warwick and Leamington
Calls for backing of committee’s recommendations to uphold standards in public life. Highlights the deterioration of ethical principles due to Prime Minister's actions, including bending rules and weakening sanctions.
Toby Perkins
Lab
Chesterfield
Raises a point of order correcting an earlier mistake regarding congratulations to John Penrose.
Expresses support for the debate, emphasising the importance of adherence to the ministerial code and Nolan principles. Criticises the current Prime Minister’s actions as violating integrity, objectivity, accountability, and honesty. Urges for independence in the process.
Sam Tarry
Lab
St Helens South and West Lancashire
The Prime Minister's actions have eroded public trust in democracy. Constituents are angered by the perception of dishonesty from the PM, such as during lockdown rules and the Owen Paterson scandal. The Prime Minister’s past behaviour, including incidents like Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s case, highlight a pattern of ill-informed and irresponsible conduct. Sam Tarry calls for urgent action to oust the PM, citing support from less than a third of MPs, and urges colleagues to explore all options to restore integrity in public life.
Fleur Anderson
Lab
Putney
Emphasised the need to support Labour's motion to push forward action needed to live up to trust. She detailed the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life and its recommendations for greater independence, transparency, and meaningful sanctions against breaches of the ministerial code. Anderson urged all Members to vote for this motion as a first step towards endorsing honesty, integrity, and decency.
Michael Ellis
Con
Wolverhampton East
Today has been a useful debate in which valuable points were raised about the importance of high standards in public life—something that, as I have set out, the Government take seriously. The recently published statement on standards in public life set out reforms that provide a measured approach to make certain that the highest standards are maintained, while ensuring democratic accountability of elected representatives to the British people via the ballot box.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Refers to Michael Ellis's comments on an unelected individual and questions about Dominic Cummings' correspondence with ACOBA, asking when a response will be provided.
Karin Smyth
Lab
Bristol South
Responds to the Minister’s arguments that all power remains with the Prime Minister. Questions how constituents can trust in public honour when current behaviour does not reflect such standards.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.