Submission I made on the Parliamentary code.
What should the purpose of the code be? Parliament’s prime task since the expenses scandal is to restore the public’s trust in politicians and politics. We are failing. Parliamentarians are no longer trusted by the public to police our own affairs. This has been demonstrated with harmful headlines exposing sex, drugs, fraud and expenses scandals where the House has apparently made lenient judgements. Standards Committees of both houses frequently adjudicate in favour of those accused. The perpetrators of alleged offences are more often than not found to have committed no breach of the Code of Conduct by the Commons authorities. 25 The Commissioner on Standards has an unenviable role of applying the MP’s code of standards to their actions in the event of a complaint.
Continuing instances of behaviour bringing Parliament into disrepute raise questions on the effectiveness of the standards system and the Commissioner’s role. Recent results suggest either the rules or their interpretation are inadequate. A rule cannot be breached if there is no rule, no matter how untoward the action. On occasions where a breach is deemed to have been committed consequences are ineffective. A breach of conduct is frequently resolved by an apology for a minor breach or a referral to the Committee on Standards for a more serious one. There is now widespread public and press perception that parliamentarians are closing ranks in defence of errant colleagues.
Case Studies In July 2012 I made a complaint to the Standards Commissioner about Lord Blencathra’s lucrative contract with the Cayman Islands. Following his appointment as Director of the Cayman Islands UK, in promotion of his services for hire, Lord Blencathra touted his lobbying skills at a press conference. His activities included lobbying George Osborne to lower air passenger transport taxes on the Caymans and facilitating an all-expenses-paid trip to the Caymans for three senior MPs. Following my complaint, the Lords Standards Commissioner decided to hold an investigation to decide if a breach of the Code of Conduct had occurred. Lord Blencathra was found not to have breached the Code of Conduct in his £12,000 a month role. He claimed to have not lobbied Parliament but admitted freely that he was lobbying Ministers and Government. This distinction was surprisingly accepted as permissible at the time. It was also decided that despite being hired for his access to legislators, he had not lobbied in his capacity as a peer but as a private citizen. As such no action was taken. In 2014 The Bureau of Investigative Journalism published an employment contract between The Cayman Islands and Lord Blencathra, exposing clauses expressly setting out how he would work for the tax haven. This contract was not made known to the Privileges and Standards Committee for its 2012 investigation. The contract’s unexplained existence prompted a new investigation at my request. Blencathra agreed to “Promote the Cayman Islands’ interests in the UK and Europe by liaising with and making representations to UK ministers, the FCO, members of Parliament and members of the House of Lords.”
Conveniently the peer’s defence has evolved periodically to suit the accusations laid against him. Initially he denied having a lobbying aspect to his role, before omitting any awareness of 26 an employment contract when under investigation. Eventually he settled on having not had any intention of fulfilling the lobbying clauses within the contract he later remembered signing. The investigators would not take a hard line against one of their fellow peers. The perception of Parliamentarians for hire was legitimised by the Lord’s Standards Commissioner who refused to take a tough stance on the matter. It was accepted that although he received £12,000 a month for services that he was contractually obliged to perform, Lord Blencathra did not intend to carry out those services that would have breached the Lords Code of Conduct. A brief apology from Lord Blencathra sufficed to bring an end to the affair. This judgement I believe was excessively generous and did not match the seriousness of the offence.
Lord Sewel had the leading role in overseeing the conduct of peers. He held the position of Chairman of the Privileges and Conduct Committee that considered Lord Blencathra’s case. Following his own fall from grace Lord Sewell contrived his own exoneration. Absolution by his resignation. Allowing Parliamentarians to escape judgement on their conduct by resignation is not a privilege available to non-parliamentarians. This case demonstrated an unacceptable level of permissiveness by peers for one of their own. There have been no public signs of penitence from the Upper House for these events.
Parliament was later brought into disrepute again by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind. The pair were recorded discussing possible lobbying work with reporters posing as staff of a fake Chinese firm. Sir Malcolm was said to have claimed that he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world because of his status, while Mr Straw boasted of operating “under the radar” to use his influence to change European Union rules on behalf of a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year. The admission made by Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind appear to be clear breaches of the code which states: 12. The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is contrary to the law of Parliament.[3] 13. Members shall fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members' Financial Interests. They shall always be open and frank in drawing attention to any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its Committees, and in any communications with Ministers, Members, public officials or public office holders.[4] 14. Information which Members receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties should be used only in connection with those duties. Such information must never be used for the purpose of financial gain. 27 Incredibly Parliament’s standards commissioner said neither had broken Commons rules. Many of us who watched the programmes were surprised at this view.
The two former MPs seemed to have to have made statements in flagrant breaches of the above codes in their pasts and indicated willingness to disregard the rules in future. The commissioner in question Kathryn Hudson conceded there had been “errors of judgement” from Sir Malcolm while Mr Straw had breached the code of conduct “by a minor misuse of parliamentary resources”. Not for the first time the messenger was attacked. The undercover sting, carried out by Channel 4’s Dispatches and the Daily Telegraph was criticised. The report complained that if they “had accurately reported what was said by the two members in their interviews, and measured their words against the rules of the House, it would have been possible to avoid the damage that has been done to the lives of two individuals and those around them, and to the reputation of the House.” Both were referred to the Parliamentary Standards Committee. Its chairman stated: “By selection and omission the coverage distorted the truth and misled the public as to what had actually taken place.” The two were treated leniently. A subsequent detailed investigation by the independent Ofcom exonerated Channel Four from accusations that they had unfairly edited and presented the recorded interviews.
We see similar leniency in the case of former Conservative MP Tim Yeo. Mr Yeo lost his libel case against The Sunday Times over a “cash for advocacy” claim. In 2013 the newspaper alleged he breached parliamentary codes of conduct by telling undercover reporters he could promote business concerns in return for cash. It suggested Mr Yeo would approach ministers for a daily fee of £7,000 on behalf of a solar energy company with interests in the Far East. Incredibly MPs on the Standards Committee absolved Mr Yeo of any guilt arising from allegations that he abused his position as chairman of the Commons energy committee to further the interests of his business contacts. The Committee stated that following a lengthy investigation Mr Yeo had not breached any rules, and that the only misrepresentation had been committed by reporters of the Sunday Times who had posed as potential clients in the sting operation. They reserved their strongest criticism for the newspaper, saying: “We note the severe damage which is done to public trust by journalism which rests on a basis of subterfuge, misrepresentation and selective quotation.” Again, MPs closed ranks and fired a fusillade at the messengers. Again Parliament looked after its own. A committee of MPs found the actions of a journalistic sting against a colleague deplorable even though facts of great public interest had been unearthed. Another conclusion could be that the media was performing a vital function in exposing potentially corrupt parliamentarians. If these three MPs had not breached the rules, the rules appear to be deficient and in need of being rewritten. However it appears that their conduct did breach the existing code. The problem may be one of both interpretation and implementation.
28 It is clear that both Houses have failed in their duty to self-scrutinise to the satisfaction of public opinion. The committees installed for disciplinary actions appear to act incestuously, influenced by ministers, whips and the pressures of the closed community of Westminster to guard its sorry reputation for probity. Malcolm Rifkind was a member of the board that appointed Kathryn Hudson the commissioner who was later to find in his favour. This may have had no effect of any decisions made, but it does invite suspicions of possible bias. Judgements by independent bodies carry weight and credibility. Internal Commons Committees have sullied their credibility by apparently whitewashing serious charges. They now lack legitimacy. They do not deserve the trust to investigate fairly and reach just conclusions. This is sadly not a reflection of the high moral standards and integrity of the Members of the House who are tainted by perceptions of corruption/
The task of judgement and condemnation passes to public opinion, spurred on by publications such as the Telegraph and the Mail. This is not a fair method of scrutiny. The death of a former MP David Taylor was in my opinion hastened by his brutal treatment from the Telegraph. Many others have been culpable of minor infractions, or worse innocent mistakes. They have suffered the rough justice of journalists and been spuriously hung out to dry by tabloids in the pursuit of circulation delivering scandals.
To restore confidence in judgements on parliamentarians conduct, I believe we should move to bodies made up of trusted individuals who are not parliamentarians. Ideally an individual of the calibre of High Court Judge should lead it. That could be a valuable step in restoring trust. Standards in Parliament Outwith the role of the Commissioner for Standards, a web of procedure and committees exists with similar purpose. The system does not work. Procedures are ritualistic at best. Committees wield no power and appointments are rife with conflicts of interest. Lord Bew’s Committee on Standards in Public Life exists to advise the Prime Minister on the ethical standards of public life and make recommendations for improving the present system. Decisions on membership appointment are taken at a Ministerial leve;.
In 2015 a former MP, who was better qualified to adjudicate on standards than any other former MP, applied for membership of the Committee. There was a shortlist of 3. He was rejected by a Ministerial decision. This reinforces the perception of a self-serving incestuous system of patronage and rough justice. Ministers must uphold the standards contained within the Ministerial Code of Conduct. An Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests conducts investigations on perceived breaches. But only at the request of the Prime Minister.
Jeremy Hunt caused a controversy during the BSKYB takeover with allegations that he failed to act impartially as a Minister. Cameron refused to allow an investigation by the Independent Advisor. In 2014 Theresa May was reported to have leaked Ministerial correspondence regarding Islamic extremism in Birmingham schools. Despite the clear breach of the Code of Conduct, no referral was made or investigation sought.
Liam Fox resigned from his post as Defence Secretary. Again absolution by resignation. The public have no knowledge of what breach of the rules he committed, He is re-building his parliamentary career without public knowledge of why he resigned. This is a clear example where the Independent Adviser should have investigated and reported. Transparency of the nature of ministers’ conduct is vital in assessing his suitability for future posts. Calls for review of the Independent Advisor’s role have been ignored. Now we have lurched into the next Ministerial breach. The recent Kids Company fiasco revealed shortcomings from Oliver Letwin and Matthew Hancock who should certainly be referred for investigation for ignoring Civil Service advice and wasting £3 million of taxpayers’ money. Yet the case involves the charity that epitomised the Big Society.
The Prime Minister is politically committed to the Big Society concept that has been discredited by the Kids Company scandal. We haven’t restored public confidence in MPs. We cannot hope to until extensive rules are in place with an independent overseer who can refer alleged Ministerial Mis-conduct to the Adviser. The oath The Rules of Duties of Members states V 4. By virtue of the oath, or affirmation, of allegiance taken by all Members when they are elected to the House, Members have a duty to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to law. This is a problem for MPs with republican views. Recent attempts to introduce non-royal alternatives have been lost by small majorities 137 to 151 in 1998 and 129 and 148 in 2000. These results suggest that at least a fifth of MPs wish to have an alternative. Many new forms of words have been suggested. Kevin McNamara’s bill of 1998 proposed a choice including: “I do solemnly Declare and Affirm that I will, to the best of my ability, discharge the responsibilities required of me by virtue of my membership of the House of Commons and faithfully serve those whom I represent here”. Opinion polls claim that support of Republicanism in the population varies from 25% to 35% of the population. The present rules force MPs into making statements that they do not believe in order to take their seats. There are now precedents for MPs to attaching their own conditions to the official wording. Dennis Skinner in 1992 declared his loyalty to an ‘income tax-paying monarch’. Tony Benn and others prefixed their oaths with the words ‘As a convinced 30 republican ... ’. Other new members have innovated their own conditions. This is not satisfactory in that the first act of new MPs is to tell an untruth or use a form of words that seeks to undermine part of the code of conduct. That does not encourage obedience to other rules. A Republican alternative should be allowed. Acoba The revolving door from high public office to private company sinecure is spinning as freely as ever. At least 25 former ministers from David Cameron's coalition are raking in over £1m between them. Five former members of the prime minister's cabinet are among dozens of ex-coalition ministers earning up to £600 an hour in the sectors they used to regulate. Most have plum parttime roles as directors, advisers or board chairmen. The job of the Commons watchdog, the
Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba), is to restrict the abuse of former ministers, civil servants and generals by selling their insider knowledge and contacts to the highest bidder. But it is not a watchdog; it’s a fawning pussycat without teeth or claws. Informed born-again lobbyists are placed into influential commercial positions where they are motivated by private greed—not the public's good. The tentacles of this permissive system penetrate deeply and threaten the integrity of public life. The roles of top civil servants, generals or government ministers were traditionally the pinnacles of careers. Now they are often judged as stepping-stones on the climb to retirement riches.
When in office, decisions involving billions may be subtly influenced by a nod or a wink in favour of the prospect of a lucrative job in retirement and a hacienda in Spain. All former ministers are obliged to seek the committee’s advice if they take on any job within two years of leaving office. And cabinet ministers are expected to wait a minimum of three months before taking private work. The work of Acoba is justly mocked. Its previous chair, Lord Lang, was interviewed by the Dispatches sting team that forced transport secretary Stephen Byers, former health secretary Patricia Hewitt and former defence secretary Geoff Hoon into suspension from the Parliamentary Labour Party in 2010 for allegedly “bringing it into disrepute”. Lang did not commit himself to working for the bogus job offered but he sent his CV to the Dispatches team for further consideration. New chair, Tory peer Angela Browning was cross-examined by the Public Administration Committee at a ludicrous “retrospective pre-appointment” hearing confirmation of her role. She was a minister in the Home Office until 2011 and is now paid between £300 and £800 a day for occasional work for a political consultancy firm that trains people in the health industry on topics such as “how to influence the political agenda”. 31 Nearly all other members of her committee are drawn from the great and the good that regard £60,000 for a part-time retirement job as normal entitlement for themselves and for their chums. Acoba has never banned a minister from taking a job and its recommendations on restricting lobbying are not binding. They have no powers to enforce them. Under the present regime of permissiveness Acoba performs no useful function. It is a useless ornament on the body politic. Former holders of high office are free to prostitute their contacts and knowledge to the highest bidder. It should be replaced with an independent body with powers to enforce its decisions.
Interesting argument. And with respect one that could have been made 20 years ago, and still be ignored. Most of them probably think they have 'made it' and have the right to bleed everything they can out of the circumstance.
I question the value of politicians orating on this subject. Not you but most of them are stiff necked idiots. Someone who genuinely cares about the institution and its conduct is in a minority. Nevertheless, it is all 'theirs'. They built it, they 'succeeded', and they have the right to profit. Yes, they are wrong. The country, the world, goes back many centuries and the stand out people are not the selfish arrogant ones, they are not what progress is built upon.
Why is it that manpower was cheaper the further back you go? And why is it that facile popinjays seek the credit and esteem from it? To pretentiously boast of their wealth in most instances. Not for any interest or benefit of ours. Bring them down. Make them say sorry properly.
I guess authority is only instigated insofar as we allow it to be. When it behaves like it is unfit and unreasonable, well, it is time at the least to punish them electorally. When people are unsuitable, lacking in basic dignity, when they show themselves incapable of basic reason, and conduct themselves with animal instinct. They should be ruined and cast out without pity. Quite which 'rule' applies I am not sure, but if you will allow I will pontificate.
* Be made to suffer consequences. I've no sympathy. They knew what they were doing, they are traitors. Some of them are only idiots, but that's at best.
* Strip them of every title and privilege immediately, even within the system they have brought it into disrepute: without?
Posted by: Ad | October 29, 2017 at 11:37 PM