MPs' standards: independent watchdog has 'grave concerns' on blocked debate

MPs' standards: independent watchdog has 'grave concerns' on blocked debate
Commons leader Andrew Lansley clashes with watchdog over proposals to make MPs accountable to parliamentary committee



The leader of the Commons, Andrew Lansley, is blocking a debate on whether to make MPs accountable to the parliamentary standards committee for exceptional wrongdoing in their "private and personal lives", triggering a clash with the commissioner responsible for overseeing MPs' standards.

Lansley has argued there is no point debating the proposals, recommended in a report by the Commons standards and privileges committee more than 18 months ago, because MPs have previously vetoed the idea of being investigated over anything to do with their personal lives – even if the wrongdoing could bring parliament into disrepute.

If the proposals went ahead it could have allowed the committee to hold an inquiry into the sexual misconduct of suspended Lib Dem MP Mike Hancock.

Lansley's refusal to allow a debate on the report, first published in December 2012, has caused Kathryn Hudson, the independent commissioner on standards, to express "grave concern" in her annual review published on Monday.

"It is extremely disappointing that time has not been found for such a debate, not least because the new rules are considerably clearer on certain issues, including some which have been the subject of inquiries this year," she said.

"If there is disagreement with some of the Committee's proposals, MPs would be free to amend them in debate and leadership may be shown by addressing issues transparently and honestly, rather than by avoiding difficult discussions. In my first annual report I expressed my disappointment that the House had not found time to consider the changes. Another full year has now passed without such a debate and decision on the rules."

Kevin Barron, a Labour MP and chairman of the standards committee, said he fully endorsed the commissioner's concerns about the need for a debate.

Some members of the Commons standards committee have privately expressed disquiet that they were not able to accept an investigation into Hancock, the suspended Liberal Democrat MP who has now apologised for sexually inappropriate behaviour towards a vulnerable constituent with mental health problems.

The complainant has said her accusations were ignored by the Lib Dems and parliamentary authorities, forcing her to take legal action in order to gain redress.

Following the trial of Nigel Evans, who was cleared of rape and sexual assault, there have also been concerns that people can only take allegations about inappropriate personal behaviour by MPs to police or the whips, who have long been accused of trying to brush claims that could damage their party under the carpet.

The Commons will on Monday debate a new grievance procedure for Palace of Westminster staff to take action over bullying or harassment by MPs, but this will not cover their own researchers and secretarial teams, who are directly employed by them.

Speaking to a new parliamentary inquiry on MP ethics, Lansley said MPs have already voted against being held accountable for actions in their private and personal life in March 2012 and there was no need to revisit the issue.

"An amendment was passed that precluded certain investigations," he said. "The issue was, in effect, within what I would regard as the same time frame – certainly within the same parliament, with effectively the same members being asked to have the same debate on the same issue, with an expectation of a different result … The house was not in any position – I wasn't in a position – to expect a different result.

"In terms of allocating time, it is not my objective to allocate time for a debate that, in itself, does not move the position forward."

Asked about concerns that some MPs were getting through a lot of staff and did not know how to treat them properly, Lansley resisted the idea of a compulsory induction programme.

"The idea that you can make things compulsory is inherently difficult with members of parliament, because although they are subject to the whip, beyond that they are strictly speaking completely free to determine their own responsibility," he said.

Angela Eagle, his Labour shadow, also warned there was little point reviving the issue of holding MPs accountable for "personal and private" actions, saying it had "caused a lot of worry for many, many members, which is why that amendment to the suggestions was made".

"Should that come back to the house, you would get the same result unless much more work was done to try to reassure members that this is not overly intrusive into their purely private lives. I think even MPs are probably, under human rights law, allowed at least a tiny bit of private life. There are worries among members about what that might mean in the kind of context within which we all operate."

The inquiry into reforms of the MP standards regime by a parliamentary subcommittee was set up in the wake of the scandal over former culture secretary Maria Miller's mortgage expenses. This saw the independent investigator's conclusions that she should repay £45,000 watered down by the Commons standards committee of 10 MPs and three lay members, who said she should repay just £5,800.

After that, David Cameron conceded that there might be a case for reforms to the system to combat the public perception that MPs were still policing themselves.

Under the current system, an independent commissioner investigates complaints and makes recommendations to the standards committee, which draws conclusions and recommends sanctions. This is then brought before the House of Commons for approval.

Lansley said he thought there should be an equal balance of MPs and lay members on the standards committee.

He also said it could be written into guidance that these lay members effectively have a "veto" on any report by the MPs with which they disagree, as they can express a contrary opinion.

However, he said it would not be right to give these lay members any actual voting rights, meaning MPs would still have the final say on whether to recommend sanctions on their colleague under investigation.

Unelected people could not be allowed to "reach into" parliament and overrule its authority as that would contravene the principle of privilege, he said.

"The House has privilege and we cannot have other people simply reaching into the House of Commons and upsetting that," he said.

Instead, Lansley proposed that he could, as leader of the Commons, bring forward the opinion of the lay members to parliament. Lay members have never yet disagreed with the MPs on the standards committee about a decision.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/14/mps-standards-independent-watchdog-grave-concerns-blocked-debate-andrew-lansley

Well, we wouldn't want them to be accountable for anything would we!

And this was supposed to be the most transparent government ever.

All lies and BS as usual

It makes me sick, all the cover-ups, all the financial misdeeds and he blocks a debate.

Sassy wrote:It makes me sick, all the cover-ups, all the financial misdeeds and he blocks a debate.  

Maybe he's in the last chance saloon or else Cameron wants to keep him as a yes man. He dumped him before as health secretary but still held on to him for some reason.

Well, he's not going to be Leader of the House anymore, because that's going to be Hague.