The Committee on Standards has launched an inquiry into the
landscape of bodies and processes that have some role in
regulating the conduct of MPs. The Committee invites written
submissions relating to the terms of reference set out below. The
deadline for receiving these is Monday 25 September.
The inquiry will commence with oral evidence from Sir Laurie
Magnus, Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, on 18 July
(see separate announcement attached). A programme of further oral
evidence in the autumn will be announced in due course.
The existing landscape
The following bodies represent the landscape of different
Committees, offices, external groups and/or individuals that have
a role in the regulation of MPs:
Direct regulation of MPs
- Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (the Registrar and
the Clerk of the Journals advise on the rules and stationery
rules respectively but play no part in enforcement)
- Committee on Standards
- Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS)
- Independent Expert Panel
- Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the
Compliance Office for IPSA
- Mr Speaker and his deputies (for conduct in the Chamber)
- Committee of Privileges
- Electoral Commission
Indirect or advisory regulation of MPs
- Committee on Standards in Public Life
- Political parties
Regulation of Ministers or former Ministers
- Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba)
- Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests
- Departmental Permanent Secretaries
- Propriety and Ethics Team, Cabinet Office
Terms of reference
The inquiry will seek responses to the following questions:
- What does the current landscape of bodies and processes
regulating MPs (including MPs who are also Ministers) look like
to the public?
- Whilst the history of the standards system in Parliament and
Government is piecemeal, does the system have coherence? Are
there obvious anomalies?
- Is there any scope for simplification or consolidation? What
would be the benefits and what would be the risks?
- How do political party processes and formal regulatory
processes interact? Should there be greater consistency in
internal party processes?
- Are there ways in which different processes, or the
relationship between different bodies, could be streamlined for
MPs?
- Could the role and remit of different bodies be better
explained or promoted?
- Could there be an easier way for members of the public to
make complaints or raise concerns about conduct, where they are
not sure which body has oversight?
- Does the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and other legislation
relating to the disqualification of Members, operate
satisfactorily? How could it be improved?
- What can be learned from parallel processes in other
parliaments/assemblies within the UK and elsewhere?
Please note that the standards system in the House of Lords will
not form part of this review which focusses on the House of
Commons.
