House of Commons · Westminster Hall
23 October 2023 · 5 other contributors · 11,783 words
Opened by Martyn Day SNP Linlithgow and East Falkirk
Responding minister: Alex Burghart
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Martyn Day raised concerns about honesty in politics in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key points
Key requests to Government
Martyn Day asks the Government to introduce legislation making it a criminal offence for MPs to mislead the public or lie in Parliament, arguing this would improve the quality of politics and restore trust. He also requests that an apology be given to Members who were expelled for calling out dishonesty.
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Martyn Day is concerned about the issue of MPs misleading the public or lying in Parliament, which has led to a loss of trust among constituents. He cites specific examples, including the Boris Johnson scandal and the expulsion of hon. Members for calling out dishonesty, as evidence that current mechanisms are insufficient. He notes that over 243,918 people have signed petitions urging criminal sanctions for such actions.
Discussed the declining public trust in politicians, highlighting that 25 MPs have been suspended for misconduct since 2019. Called for a formal process to correct records in Hansard beyond just Ministers, advocating for a review of rules around calling out lies and ensuring honesty from Members of Parliament. Sir Chris Bryant argued it would be unfair to expect the Speaker to fact-check MPs and suggested considering an independent body for this purpose, ensuring confidence among MPs and public alike. He highlighted that without such measures, public trust in democracy is at risk.
She agrees with the hon. Gentleman's concerns but points out that existing solutions are not working and calls for a shift in rewarding those who stick by the truth. Ms Saville-Roberts emphasised the need to address political dishonesty because it rewards individuals for lying and does not penalise them, thereby polluting politics. Liz Saville-Roberts expressed concern about the impact of political dishonesty on public trust, citing examples such as 'Partygate' and misleading statements made during the conference recess. She proposed a private Member's Bill making it an offence for politicians to wilfully lie in their public statements, with penalties including fines and bans from standing for election.
The MP expressed concern over the loss of public trust in politicians due to the former Prime Minister's dishonesty during the pandemic. She advocated for an independent ethics and integrity commission to oversee ministerial conduct, prevent conflicts of interest for former Ministers, and enforce standards without political control.
Mr Thompson thanked the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk for opening the debate, commending those who signed petitions. He warned of an era of post-truth politics due to issues like Boris Johnson's dishonesty and Donald Trump's denialism in America. Emphasised the need for integrity and adherence to rules based on University College London research which highlighted 75% support for politicians acting within rules compared to just 6% supporting breaking them for better outcomes.
He highlights that only 17% of people in the UK say they are highly satisfied with democracy, worse than Canada and Germany. He criticises past political strategies like 'burying bad news' and 'dead catting'. Richard also expresses concerns about making lying a criminal offence for MPs as it could reduce public trust or even lead to politically motivated prosecutions. Mr Richard Foord suggested the need to discard political strategies that involve lying or misleading, advocating for honesty in politics. He agreed with Mr Thompson on the 'dead cat' strategy.
Government Response
Alex BurghartStated that parliamentary privilege and freedom of speech are fundamental principles, citing historical documents such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Claim of Right Act 1689. Warned against legal challenges intimidating MPs into self-censorship on contentious issues, arguing this would have a damaging effect on democracy.