Slow Progress in Parliament: The Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1468-2230.2003.06606007.x |
| Author | Rhoda James,Richard Kirkham |
| Date | 01 November 2003 |
| Published date | 01 November 2003 |
Slow Progress in Parliament: The Eighth Report of the
Committee on Standards in Public Life
Rhoda James and Richard Kirkham
Introduction
The House of Commons is at the heart of our democracy. The standards of conduct
observed by its members are crucially important to the political well-being of the nation yIt
is vital for the quality of Government, for the effective scrutiny of Government, and for the
democratic process, that Members of Parliament should maintain the highest standards of
propriety in discharging their obligations to the public which elects them. It is also essential
for public confidence that they should be seen to do so.
1
This was the viewpoint of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its First Report in 1995,
and few would disagree with the constitutional importance of the issue. Hence, it is reassuring
that in a recent review by the present Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Wicks
Committee, it was found that the House of Commons scored well in its adherence to high
standards of conduct. However, it has long been observed that there is a marked difference
between parliamentary standards in practice and parliamentary standards in the public eye, a
difference that led Wicks in its Eighth Report to explore ways in which this shortfall could be
addressed.
2
This note examines and evaluates the findings of Wicks and the subsequent response
of Parliament, arguing that in the long term a more radical reconstruction of the current,
predominantly self-regulatory, arrangement is desirable.
Background
The history behind the introduction of the current regulatory system is well
documented.
3
In 1994, following a number of high profile incidents of
questionable behaviour by MPs and amidst a growing atmosphere of public
distrust, John Major’s Government was forced to address the issue of standards. It
did so by setting up an advisory non-departmental body, the Committee on
Standards in Public Life, a body initially chaired by Lord Nolan
4
to examine the
standards of conduct of all holders of public office. The Committee has continued
to operate long after the original sitting of the Nolan Committee, with the result
Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Faculty of Law, University of Sheffield. We are very grateful to
Robert Behrens, Secretary to the Wicks Committee, for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.
All opinions and errors are our own. Since this note was submitted, the House of Commons have
debated the Eighth Report (26 June 2003). Wherethe motions passed in that debate have altered the
system of parliamentary self-regulation we have amended this piece accordingly.Otherwise the note
concentrates on the Eighth Report and the response of the Committee on Standardsand Privileges.
1 The Committee on Standards in Public Life, First Report on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2850
(1995), 20, paras 1 and 2.
2 The Committee on Standards in Public Life, The Eighth Report,Standards of Conduct in the House
of Commons, Cm 5663 (2002).
3 See for instance, O.Gay, Parliamentary Standards, (House of Commons Library: Research Paper
01/102,2002) 7–10.
4 The practice has developed of referring to the Committee by its Chair. There have been three
chairs to date, Lord Nolan (1994–1997), Lord Neill (1997 –2001) and Sir Nigel Wicks (2001), and
between them they have presided over 9 reports.
rThe Modern Law Review Limited 2003. (MLR 66:6, November). Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
906
To continue reading
Request your trial