Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons

(a) In each Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should initiate a review of the Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules.
(b) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should recommend any amendments to the Code and the Guide to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
(c) The Committee on Standards and Privileges should consult on amendments to the Code and the Guide with relevant external bodies.
(d) Following this consultation, the Committee on Standards and Privileges should recommend any amendments to the Code and the Guide to the House.
(e) The House of Commons should debate the recommendations of the Committee on Standards and Privileges in a timely fashion. (page 24)

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should periodically review, in conjunction with the House authorities and the Whips, the effectiveness of the provision for training and guidance on standards of conduct. (page 25)

The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should ensure that there are effective means in place to inform all MPs of changes to the Code or Guide. (page 26)

It should be made clear that it is the responsibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to notify the MP at the earliest possible stage of each relevant part of the Code of Conduct which it is alleged has been breached. (page 29)

It should be an explicit requirement of the Code of Conduct that Members must co-operate with any investigation, at all stages. (page 29)

It should be an explicit requirement of the Ministerial Code that Members who are Ministers must co-operate with any investigation, at all stages. (page 30)

The Guide to the Rules should be amended to set out clearly the means by which the Committee on Standards and Privileges would deal with frivolous or vexatious complaints. (page 30)

It should be made clear that the role of the Commissioner as an investigator is to report the facts as he/she has found them and, wherever possible, offer his/her own conclusion on whether the Code has been breached. (page 32)

The role of the Commissioner in the rectification procedure should be set out clearly. (page 32)

The role of the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be set out fully. (page 34)

The Committee should be required to set out in full the reasons for its decisions. (page 35)

(a) The House should establish an Investigatory Panel to handle serious, contested cases.
(b) The Investigatory Panel should comprise an independent legal Chair from outside the House and two MPs of substantial seniority drawn from different parties and who are not members of the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
(c) The Chair of the Investigatory Panel and the pool of MPs from which the two other Panel members will be drawn should be identified at the beginning of each Parliament.
(d) The Committee on Standards and Privileges should refer to the Investigatory Panel any cases involving disputed and significant issues of fact where the Member would face a serious penalty in the event of the complaint being found to be proved.
(e) An MP whose case is being considered by the Panel should have the right (i) to call and examine witnesses and (ii) to receive reasonable financial assistance for legal advice and representation.
(f) The Investigatory Panel should be able to appoint Counsel who could cross-examine witnesses.
(g) The Investigatory Panel should reach decisions by a majority.
(h) The Investigatory Panel should report its findings on the facts that it has identified and its own conclusion on whether the Code has been breached to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.
(i) It should be for the Committee on Standards and Privileges to decide whether there has been a breach of the Code, taking account of the findings of the Investigatory Panel.
(j) The findings of the Investigatory Panel should be published as an appendix to the report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. (page 38)

(a) The Investigatory Panel and the Committee on Standards and Privileges, where it takes evidence, should take evidence in public.
(b) The proceedings of the Investigatory Panel and the Committee on Standards and Privileges should not be broadcast. (page 39)

The House should take steps to introduce additional financial penalties without suspension as a sanction for breach of the Code of Conduct. (page 41)

No one party should hold an overall majority membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. (page 46)

The Committee on Standards and Privileges should be composed of a majority of members with senior standing in the House. The Chairman should continue to be drawn from the Opposition parties. The inclusion of any recently elected Members should be based on their having relevant experience outside the House which would contribute to the work of the Committee. (page 47)

Parliamentary Private Secretaries should be excluded from membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and from membership of the Investigatory Panel. (page 48)

The Committee should appoint an outside legal adviser in order to assist it with its work on a regular basis. (page 48)

(a) It should be a requirement of the Code of Conduct that no MP shall lobby a member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges with the intention of influencing their view of a case.
(b) Until the Committee’s report on a case is published, there should be an explicit requirement that no member of the Committee on Standards and Privileges should discuss the case outside Committee meetings.
(c) The recommendations at (a) and (b) should apply equally to members of the Investigatory Panel. (page 49)

The post of Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be clearly defined as an office-holder, appointed and paid for, but not employed, by the House. (page 53)

(a) The Commissioner should in future be appointed for a non-renewable fixed term.
(b) The House should decide on a term of between five and seven years. (page 54)

(a) The House should continue to appoint the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on a recommendation from the House of Commons Commission.
(b) The House of Commons Commission should, as best practice, conform with the Code of Practice of the Commissioner for Public Appointments at all stages of the selection process.
(c) The Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be a member of the selection panel and attend any relevant meetings of the Commission when the appointment of the Commissioner is discussed. (page 56)

(a) The Commissioner should be given direct powers equivalent to those of the Committee to call for witnesses and papers.
(b) If a witness was unwilling to comply with the Commissioner’s use of these powers, the Commissioner could refer the case to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, who could then, if so minded, use its own powers. (page 57)

The process for setting the resources for the Commissioner’s office should be transparent; the Commissioner and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be involved in arriving at the budget. (page 58)

(a) In relation to all stages of an individual complaint, the Commissioner should confine comments to the media to the fact that a complaint has (or has not) been received, whilst making clear that the existence of a complaint does not mean that the Code has been breached.
(b) After consultation with the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Commissioner should draw up a statement of his/her strategy towards inquiries from the media. The statement should be published and included in the annual report. (page 60)

The Commissioner should publish an annual report. (page 60)

The House should implement the following recommendations by Standing Order: • Chapter 4: R1(a), (b), (c), (d); • Chapter 5: R4, R8, R9; • Chapter 6: R10, R11, R12(a), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), R13; • Chapter 7: R18, R19(b) and (c); • Chapter 8: R20, R23, R26. (page 62)