Sharon Darcy:
Out of step with wider regulation and practice, the House of Commons is at risk of further scandal
Five years ago I was appointed as one of the first lay members on the Committee on Standards in the House of Commons. One of just three outsiders, I was brought in to work alongside MPs on the committee to provide an independent perspective to questions of MPs’ conduct. In many ways a stranger entering a strange land.
The end of my term is a good opportunity to take stock, particularly as the external environment makes the need for strong leadership on standards issues pressing. Trust in established institutions is imploding, online platforms are reshaping the nature of political debate, and Brexit is raising fundamental questions about the primacy of parliamentary sovereignty. It is timely to explore how the “governance of government” needs to rise to these challenges and to consider afresh the ethical foundations on which parliamentary processes sit.
The introduction of lay members on the Committee on Standards has altered the tone and substance of discussions and introduced new ways of doing business. Lay members, who are now equal in number to the MPs on the committee, are given a full role in discussions. However, perceptions are important. What may seem revolutionary within the confines of Westminster can be viewed as a slow – even glacial – pace of change from the outside.
The standards system in the Commons lags behind that in the professions and other walks of life. It has not kept up with changing public expectations and ways of doing things. For example, the House has detailed rules for the use of embossed stationery but no individual rules for members on the use of digital media.
Out of step with wider regulation and practice, Parliament is at risk of further scandal. Ensuring that we all play by the same rules – unless there are clear and compelling reasons for a different approach – is vital if we are to bind our democracy together.
Given this backdrop, what should be done? The first obstacle that needs to be addressed is the fragmented responsibility for standards in the House. A number of different committees and individuals have responsibility for issues of conduct and ethics. The checks and balances that were introduced for good reasons are confusing to insiders and outsiders alike and can lead to inertia and paralyse decision-making.
Much of the focus is on financial registrations and declarations rather than wider questions of conflicts of interest that may have an equally corrosive impact on how Parliament is perceived. No one body is taking an overview or focusing on the common interests that all MPs have in securing public confidence in the House.
The limited appetite for change poses a second challenge. Putting aside party differences to advance a cause that is often contentious and unlikely to lead to any quick or visible wins is not a route to political advancement. This point, coupled with short parliamentary terms and the fact that most MPs face multiple and competing priorities, means few are willing to put in the hard yards to get the cultural change in place that could benefit the wider reputation of Parliament. This is a Catch-22. As long as standards issues are dealt with reactively, in response to crises and with penalties that many perceive as weak, MPs are unlikely to put themselves forward for what can be a thankless task.
The challenge is to turn standards from a negative subject to one where the focus is on getting a positive ethos in the House.
To do this, the standards system needs to provide a stronger framework to support the overwhelming majority of MPs who do not take their privileged positions for granted and do a fantastic job working for their constituents, with many putting in more than 60-hour weeks.
These issues go far beyond the remit of the committee and raise significant questions for the whole House. The media can also help with accurate communication of what goes on in Parliament and framing the public views about how standards may need to evolve. The seven lay members can help to root debates about standards in the real world. Unless the House itself wants to change, however, and stops seeing those outside Westminster as “strangers”, this is likely to be an uphill struggle.