What are the foundations for a good code of conduct?

Moral principles are key.

·       Behind every Code of Conduct there must be moral principles that provide an incentive to follow rules.

·       In the UK, we have the Nolan principles. The Nolan Principles of Public Life, developed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, are seven principles that outline the ethical standards expected of those in public office: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership.

But the Nolan principles are not enforceable as they are statements of moral virtue. These are very broad and cannot be enforced and it’s very difficult to measure what ‘leadership’ looks like.

·       The main purpose of principles is to make sure politicians are in it for the public benefit.

·       Having a principle of transparency is the best way to stop personal gain. If you shine a light on being honest, then it backs up a rule on declaring interests. It motivates politicians to be honest.

·       For example, if a Code of Conduct only has rules and not principles, it can create loopholes. For example, if you could easily lie and say you didn’t lobby someone if there were only ‘rules’ that were not intertwined with principles.

·       If an MP breaks the Code and tries to get out of it by lying or finding a loophole, then they are breaking an ethical code of honesty and accountability and, thus, not following a code’s ethical principles.

·       It is then imperative that formal, clear rules are then created that allow for a more detailed, clear structure that make it very easy to know what is acceptable and not acceptable.

·       Ultimately, every rule should lead back to the idea that an Politician is a selfless ethical person who serves the general public.

the importance of independence

the importance of independence

 The UK House of Commons has several independent bodies which are crucial to the regulation of Parliament.

Through the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Lay Members on the Committee on Standards, the ICGS and the IEP, Parliament has a ‘safety lock’ of allowing an outside perspective. The Commissioner/Lay Members have fixed term contracts which can’t be renewed.

This means in practice that they are less likely to be institutionalised or feel pressure to ‘placate’ politicians through favours or the promise of a long term job. There is also an independent interview process for these independent roles.

MPs cannot debate or amend motions on cases that come to the House, this avoids the possibly of MPs watering down suspensions or sanctions.

A case study in stationary

 However, sometimes a principles-based code can actually make it easier for MPs and allow a flexibility which inspires mutual trust and engagement.

As of April 2023, the House of Commons agreed new rules governing the use of stationery.

 The stationery rules represent a significant simplification of the existing rules. In order to give clarity to Members, rather than setting out detailed provisions for the different possible uses of House stationery, the House has taken a principles-based approach. In some cases, this will involve an exercise of judgment on the part of Members (who are encouraged, when in doubt, to seek advice), and, in the case of an investigation, the Commissioner.

 Previously the Committee on Standards noted that: We intend to produce an update of the stationery rules in light of recent experiences and cases. The main aim will be to provide greater clarity to Members and the Commissioner, so as to avoid inadvertent breaches.

  The new rules maintain explicit prohibitions on the use of House of Commons stationery for business purposes and for party political campaigning. However, outside of these prohibitions, it is for Members to judge whether their use of House stationery is in support of their parliamentary duties (or is modest and reasonable personal use).

Members who seek and follow the advice of the Clerk of the Journals in respect of a specific course of action under the stationery rules will have the benefit of the “safe harbour” provision in the Guide to the Rules, and therefore will not later be found to be in breach of the Code, so long as they have provided sufficient information for the advice to be relevant.  It is the expectation that the Clerk of the Journals, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and IPSA will maintain a common understanding of the meaning of these rules.