House of Commons - Committee on Standards: The House of Commons Code of Conduct and the Criminal Law - HC 903

by Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Committee on Standards

2013 · The Stationery Office

The Committee, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Metropolitan Police have reaffirmed and redrafted the existing concordat on the complaints system and the criminal law. The concordat is concerned with operational matters. It would be inappropriate for it to set down the possible effect of parliamentary privilege on any future legal proceedings. This report sets out in more detail the relationship between the inquiries conducted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee and those conducted by the police, and to correct some misunderstandings of the effect of parliamentary privilege on court proceedings. Privilege protects parliamentary proceedings and the core functions of Parliament, it does not provide a haven from the general criminal law. It is not for the Committee or the Commissioner to decide whether criminal conduct has occurred: it is for the prosecuting authorities to make that case, and for the court to decide. The Committee will not attempt to usurp the functions of the prosecuting authorities. Parliaments and Governments in other jurisdictions have been criticised for encouraging political prosecutions. In recent decades there have been occasions when parliamentary proceedings might have cut across criminal investigations.. Each case has to be considered on its own merits as the relationship between committee proceedings and criminal investigations will vary, but it is right that Parliament should exercise self restraint in considering cases where prosecutions may ensue. Where a crime is committed within the House of Commons, this may well also constitute a contempt of Parliament

House of Commons - Committee on Standards: All-Party Parliamentary Groups - HC357

by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee on Standards

2013 · The Stationery Office

All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are groups of Members, from both Houses, who may or may not be supported by outside organisations, and are established for a wide range of purposes. There is a Register of such groups, overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There has been increasing concern that APPGs pose a reputational risk to the House in several ways: they may provide access for lobbyists; they put pressure on resources; and their output is confused with that of official select committees. But APPGs also provide: forums for cross-party interaction which is not controlled by the whips, interaction between the Members of the Commons and the Lords; and a forum for parliamentarians, academics, business people, the third sector and other interested parties; time and space for policy discussion and debate; and a means for back bench parliamentarians to set the policy agenda. There is a longstanding dilemma about the regulation of APPGs: they are essentially informal groupings, established by individual Members, yet the more restrictions and requirements that are placed on them, the more they appear to be endorsed by the House. The House of Commons Commission has already decided to withdraw the passes of APPG staff. The Committee proposes a package of reforms: ensure that Members' responsibility for APPG activity is clear and accountable; ensure transparency not only about external support, but also about the activities funded by such support; and far greater clarity about the status of the various types of informal work that Members carry out.

HC 383 - The Standards System in the House of Commons

by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Committee on Standards

2015 · The Stationery Office

In January 2013 three lay members became part of a new Committee on Standards. As a result of the lay members' reflections on the experience of their first year in office the Committee on Standards decided to undertake a comprehensive review of the standards system in the House of Commons. There has been a decline in public trust, not just in politics but in other institutions. The expenses scandal played a significant part in reducing public trust, and the Committee do not underestimate its impact. It still has an immense effect on how MPs' activities are seen and reported. The majority of MPs carry out their tasks without any questions raised about the propriety of their actions. The growth in constituency case work suggests that while the public may distrust MPs in general, in practice they are willing to bring individual MPs their problems. MPs have a complex and multi-faceted role, and one of the lessons of the last year has been that there is little understanding of what MPs do, the rules governing their conduct, and the ways in which those rules are enforced. This Report is intended to increase that understanding, as well as to propose improvements. This report sets out the range of functions that an MP undertakes. It describes the various aspects of MPs' work and the limitations of their role. It acknowledges MPs need the freedom to decide their priorities within a potentially infinite workload. The Committee believes self-regulation, with external input, is the appropriate system.

Lay Membership of the Committee on Standards and Privileges

by Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Procedure, Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Procedure Committee

2011 · The Stationery Office

The House should be given the opportunity to restate its acceptance of the principle behind the proposal that lay members be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Procedure Committee concludes in a report published today. The committee's report responds to the resolution of the House of 2 December last year that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. If that principle is restated, the House should study with care the arguments made for the inclusion of lay members with or without voting rights, and decide whether lay members should be appointed to the committee with full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights protected by rules on quorum and publication of their opinion or advice. A decision in favour of membership with full voting rights would require legislation to be brought forward to put beyond reasonable doubt any question of whether parliamentary privilege applies to the Committee on Standards where it has an element of lay membership. The Procedure Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be split in two, and that lay members should be included only on the committee relating to standards. The committee also makes a number of practical recommendations about the number, appointment and term of office of lay members.