Humans are mostly imperfect, prone to various flaws of character. It should thus come as no surprise that our elected political representatives can, on occasion, succumb to the many weaknesses of the human spirit. Despite the low esteem politicians are held in by members of the public, we continue, however, to have high expectations of our Members of Parliament (MPs)- probably best summarised in the seven “Nolan principles” of public life as selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership, which in combination seems a lot to expect from any single person.
Standards of probity in British public life were most recently put to the test on 3 November 2021, when the House of Commons voted 250 to 232 in support of an amendment to both review the suspension for 30 sitting days imposed upon a Conservative MP, Owen Paterson, as well as to set up a new bipartisan parliamentary committee, chaired by another Conservative, to establish a new system of parliamentary standards. This measure had the backing of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons, and prompted a three-line whip, requiring all ruling party MPs to attend and vote in support. There are 361 Conservative MPs in all, giving the party a working majority of 79. Despite this overwhelming majority, 98 Conservative MPs abstained, and thirteen even voted against their own party, cutting the majority in favour of the proposition down to just 18. The result of the vote indicated widespread dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Conservatives on a scale previously not encountered, forcing the government into a hasty retreat, best described as U-turn, the following day.
Mr. Paterson, Conservative MP for Shropshire North since 1997, formerly served in the Cabinet and was once engaged in the family leather business. He is an ardent Brexiter, a climate change sceptic, and a hunt supporter to boot. Paterson’s suspension was recommended by the Committee for Standards in October 2021 for his breaches of the Code of Conduct for MPs. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, had earlier determined that he had inappropriately lobbied the Food Standard Agency between 2016 and 2018 on behalf of two companies, Randox Health (clinical diagnostics) and Lynn’s Country Foods (meat processor and distributor). He had received £111,916 per year, for a total of 216 hours of work as a consultant for these two companies, making various efforts on their behalf which potentially disadvantaged their competitors, in a form of “paid advocacy”. He claimed in his defence that his actions were altruistic, as he was acting as a whistleblower in raising concerns over antibiotics in milk, nitrites in bacon, and improper calibration of laboratory equipment, all in the spirit of paragraph nine of chapter three of the Guide to the Rules. The investigation had to be suspended for five months on compassionate grounds, after the suicide of his wife Rose in June 2020. Paterson largely blamed this tragic death on the trauma of what he said was a biased inquiry.
MPs are indeed allowed to hold second paid jobs and can work as consultants and advisers to the private sector, provided these additional sources of employment and any resulting earnings are declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as long as they do not use these connections for public advocacy and financial gain. Paterson was thus entitled to act as a paid consultant. It is his actions as consultant that have come under criticism.
There was a time in British politics, starting after the Second World War and continuing through the “New Elizabethan” era and much of the Sixties, when political life was mostly marked by integrity. Latterly, and especially since the 1990s British politics has, however entered a new phase of escalating “sleaze”, or political corruption. A notable early example can be found in the Cash-for-Questions scandal, first exposed in The Guardian in October 1994, which was about MPs accepting money and gifts in return for asking specific questions in Parliament on behalf of their clients.
Growing allegations of sleaze naturally demanded swift action. Lord Nolan’s Seven Principles were enunciated in the first report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, published in May 1995. Around the same time, the office of an independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was set up within the House of Commons. The Commissioner is empowered to investigate any breaches by MPs of the rules listed in paragraphs 11 to 18 of the Rule of Conduct for Members, and also oversees investigations of allegations by the “parliamentary community” of harassment, bullying, or sexual harassment against MPs. In addition, the Commissioner maintains and periodically updates the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Paragraphs 11 to 18 contain proscriptions against paid advocacy, the acceptance of bribes, and the misuse of confidential information for financial gain, and demand the registration of financial interests which might influence parliamentary actions in the Register. Above all, there has to be personal accountability for the use of “expenses, allowances, facilities, and services provided from the public purse”. The Parliamentary Commissioner directly accepts and investigates complaints about MPs, subject to oversight by the cross-party Committee of Standards of the House of Commons, which was appointed on 13 December 2012, being formed out of the erstwhile Committee on Standards and Privileges (1995-2013).
Nolan’s Report did not forestall further scandals, such as the parliamentary expenses scandal of 2009. This scandal was first reported in the Daily Telegraph on 8 May 2009 and involved the systematic misuse of expenses claims (rents, mortgages, home maintenance, utility bills, business costs, travel, etc) by members of both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Despite all the bad press at the time, the problem did not go away and yet another expenses scandal hit the press in April 2019, starting with revelations in the Daily Mirror.
The present Parliamentary fiasco is the result of the government’s unwillingness to accept and then act upon independent, yet politically inconvenient, recommendations. The sequence of events over the 3rd and 4th of November began with decisive action by the government to prevent Mr Paterson’s suspension but has instead ended up with his resignation, marking his departure from the “cruel world of politics”. This particular outcome is the net result of a significant backlash, which has included MPs from the ruling party itself. It is up to members of the British public to decide upon the merits or otherwise of the government’ s initial stance before casting their votes, initially in the forthcoming Shropshire North by-election and subsequently in the all-important general election. In the meantime, our political elites have to give serious consideration to improving their public image and appeal.
Ashis Banerjee