It will not come as a surprise to say that some politicians are held in low regard.  In the Ipsos survey only 9% of Britons trust politicians to tell the truth, the lowest level since the survey began in 1983 (Skinner et al, 2023).  The British Social Attitudes Survey reported that 58% of people “almost never” trust politicians to tell the truth when under pressure (Curtice et al, 2024).

The scandal over MP expenses, Brexit, “Partygate”, cash for questions, lobbying for money, extremely bad behaviour with members of staff have not endeared MPs to their constituents.  The appearance of weak accountability is often cited as one of the reasons for the lack of trust and confidence in politicians.

Yet members of the Westminster Parliament are among the most regulated in the world.

Over the last decade and a half, there has been an evolution of the processes within Parliament that hold MPs to account.  Admittedly, while many of these institutions have been in response to crises or scandal, this evolution can be largely characterized by an increasing tendency towards transparency and independence through the creation of independent institutions to carry out monitoring and sanctioning of Members of Parliament (Committee on Standards, 2024).

Since 2009 the House of Commons has strengthened its approach to Members’ misbehavior in a range of areas including creating independent statutory bodies to set the level of Members pay and expenses (IPSA), strengthening the powers of the Independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PSC) and accepted the principle that Members should not interfere with his/ her operational independence, endorsed a Parliamentary Behaviour Code applicable to the parliamentary community, created an independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) to investigate allegations of harassment, bullying and sexual misconduct, created an independent Expert Panel to consider sanctions and appears in ICGS cases, approved legislation creating a right of recall of Members who have committed serious breaches, revised and overhauled the Code of Conduct for MPs (for a full overview of regulatory bodies see Committee on Standards May 2024).

One of the critical institutions for holding MPs to account is the Select Committee on Standards.  Established, in its current form in 2013, the Committee comprises 7 MPs and 7 Lay Members.  The Committee must have a Chair from the Official Opposition who only has a casting vote if there is a tie which means that Lay Members – members of the public appointed through open competition – have a voting majority.  The role of Lay Members is to provide greater independence of decision making when it comes to disciplinary matters of MPs.  Lay Members are drawn from a variety of backgrounds, including complaint handling, regulatory work, governance, and accountability roles.  There is a mix of public and private sector experience.

Lay Members are expected to bring independent, non-partisan insight and experience to the adjudication of complaints against MPs in order to enhance public trust in the standards process.  Lay Members, as individuals, have the ability to add an addendum to any Committee report if they disagree with the conclusions and recommendations.  From my own perspective, as a Lay Member of the Standards Committee, I have found that the mix of MP and Lay perspectives has been extremely beneficial.  My experience is Lay Members have approached issues in a thorough and sensitive manner.  I have seen real benefit in having an MP and a Lay Member perspective on cases (Maguire, 2022).

This is unique among parliamentary bodies.  The Northern Ireland Assembly, for example, has no Lay Members on its Standards Committee, meaning that MLAs are happy to mark their own homework when it comes to assessing standards of behaviour.  In other jurisdictions similar accountability problems exist (see McCullough et al, 2021 for commentary on the Australian model).

The Committee on Standards has the responsibility for overseeing the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to adjudicate on individual cases of alleged breaches of the MPs Code of Conduct when referred by the Commissioner.  The Commissioner refers a case to the Committee which considers the evidence and determines if there has been a breach of the Code and the appropriate sanction.  Lesser sanctions, such as an apology, can be determined by the Committee, more serious ones (suspension or expulsion) require the approval of the House of Commons.  Under the Recall Act of 2015 any suspension of 10 or more sitting days imposed by the House on the recommendation of the Committee triggers the “recall” procedure.  In such cases the seat is vacated if at least 10% of those on the electoral register sign a recall petition.  In addition to individual cases the Committee has the power to consider “any matter relating to the conduct of Members”.  This has included a review of the Code of Conduct and reports on sanctions, use of House facilities, regulation of All-Party Parliamentary Groups and a review of the standards landscape.

Recommendations from the Committee are not without consequence.  As a Lay Member of the Committee on Standards it has been interesting to observe up close the mismatch between the myths and realities of MP accountability.  In my time (which comes to an end in 2026) the Committee has considered a range of high-profile cases, including lobbying for cash (Owen Patterson), bringing parliament into disrepute by offering to lobby for cash (Scott Benton), gifted holidays to the Prime Minister (Boris Johnston) and sexual harassment (Christopher Pincher).

The Committee on Standards as well as the other organisations established to hold MPs to account are not without consequence.  In the past decade 10 Members have left Parliament as a direct result of disciplinary investigations – either by resigning their seats, being deprived of their seats by the recall process or not contesting a general election immediately following the imposition of sanctions.  Those who have been found to have committed serious disciplinary offences include Members who have held office as Prime Minister, Secretary of State, Minister of State, Select Committee Chair and Speaker of the House (Committee on Standards, May 2024; James, 2024).

The standards system has had its challenges (see for example, James 2024 on the Privileges Committee investigation into Boris Johnston).  One of the most difficult times in my tenure as a Lay Member of the Committee on Standards, was the case of Owen Patterson MP.  The Committee found that Mr. Patterson had “failed to establish the proper boundaries between his private commercial work and his parliamentary activities…”.  In particular he breached the rules on declaration of interests in relation to paid advocacy.  The Committee found this “an egregious breach of paid advocacy”, as he used his position as a Member of Parliament to “secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”.  It recommended a suspension of 30 sitting days (Committee on Standards, 2021).

The publication of the Committee’s Report created a political maelstrom with significant unacceptable criticism appearing in partisan media about the Standards Commissioner, the Committee, and the standards system more generally, rubbishing the findings and recommendations.  When the Report came to the House of Commons, rather than accepting the Report, which would have been the normal course of events, the Conservative Government decided to effectively tear up the rule book and start again.  The Government amendment not to consider the Report and change the rules was passed.  Within 24 hours the position had changed significantly.  The opposition parties refused to participate in the new proposed arrangements and the Leader to the House announced a u turn on the Government’s position.  By lunchtime the following day Mr. Patterson had resigned.  The Conservatives went on to lose the seat in the by-election.

Boris Johnson later made an admission that he had decided to save Owen Patterson before reading the Report (Johnston, B. 2024 Pp 609-612).  Sheldon and Newell (2023 p 549) quoted an official saying “The Patterson affair was the moment it all went wrong, because it became impossible after it for No 10 to claim any moral high ground again”.  The affair sparked an intense focus on second jobs and paid lobbying.  The Report into Owen Patterson was subsequently approved by the House of Commons.  The former Prime Minister, Theresa May summed up the Government’s behaviour, “The attempt by the right honorable and honorable Members of this House aided and abetted by the Government under the cover of reform of the process, effectively to clear (Patterson’s) name was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong.  As Chris Bryant, then Chair of the Committee on Standards, noted in his account of the process, “Yes quite”.  (Bryant, 2023 p12).  The impact of the Patterson Report, the political turmoil it created and its subsequent acceptance by the House of Commons meant that the Standards System emerged bruised but stronger as the attack on the integrity of the standards system had been rebuffed.

The Standards Committee noted in its 2024 Landscape Review that, without being complacent, there was much to celebrate in terms of the development of more robust standards.  The Committee notes that increasing the effectiveness of the standards system can have the paradoxical effect of diminishing public confidence in Members’ conduct “by bringing to light abuses which in earlier times would have remained hidden.  But such cases, deplorable though they are, show that the system has real ‘teeth’, making it less likely that similar abuses will be committed in the future.  Jeopardy has replaced impunity and that is a major deterrent to those who might otherwise engage in bad behaviour”.  (Committee on Standards, 2024).  This may come as a surprise to those who argue there is no accountability of MPs.

 

Bibliography

• Bryant, C.  Code of Conduct: Why we need to fix parliament – and how we do it, Bloomsbury, 2023
• Committee on Standards, Mr. Owen Patterson, Third Report of Session 2021-22, HC 797, House of Commons, 26 October 2021
• Committee on Standards, The House of Commons standards landscape: how MPs standards and conduct are regulated. HC 247, House of Commons, 29^th May 2024.Curtice, J, Montagu, I, Sivathagan, C. “Damaged Politics? The impact of the 2019-2024 Parliament on political trust and confidence”. National Centre for Social Research, London, June 2024
• James, R. Kangaroo Court or defence of democracy? The privileges committee inquiry into Boris Johnston The Table, House of Lords, Vol 91, 2023
• Johnson, B. Unleashed, Harper Collins, 2024
• McCullagh, J, Maguire, M. Maher, J “Fixing Australia’s toxic parliamentary workplace: What can we learn from the United Kingdom The Lens 31 May 2021
• Maguire, M. “MP oversight needs reform to instil confidence that bad behaviour will be challenged” The House 28^th November 2022
• Sheldon, A and Newell, R Johnston at No 10 Atlantic Books, 2023
• Skinner, G. King, L and Clemence, M.  Ipsos Veracity Index, IPSOS, December 2023.

 

Biography

Michael Maguire is an Honorary Professor of Practice at the Senator George J. Mitchell Institute for Global Peace, Security and Justice.

Michael served as the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland from July 2012 to July 2019.  He was previously Chief Inspector of the Criminal Justice Inspectorate in Northern Ireland.

He was appointed a CBE – Commander of the Order of the British Empire – in the 2019 Birthday Honours.