Why doesn’t the UK government want us to know if ministers have taken away the gifts and freebies? | Chris Bryant

[ad_1]

This Parliament proved to be shocked. Since the December 2019 general election, 18 MPs have been suspended from the House of Commons for a day or more or jumped before they could be pushed – and Parliament could run for another two years now. This beats every other parliament in history with a cocked hat. Right, that’s in part because for the first time ever we’re not shoving bullying, harassment, and sexual misconduct under Pugin’s terrible rug.

Such matters used to be kept away from prying eyes but, thankfully, our expectations have changed. There is now a fully independent and confidential body, the Independent Complaints and Grievances System, which investigates complaints, and an independent panel of experts chaired by former High Court justice Sir Stephen Irwin, which adjudicates individual cases.

but that is not all. Three MPs have been found guilty in court of criminal offenses in this Parliament, and another Tory member has just been suspended pending an investigation by the Metropolitan Police. This means that the so-called ‘independent’ group of MPs, made up of those whose party has suspended the whip – either for an offense or pending investigation – now consists of 15 MPs. This is more than the total number of liberal MPs. In addition, one unnamed MP was asked to stay away from Parliament while the extremely serious allegations were being investigated.

At the other end of the scale, Jo Cox and Sir David Ames have both been murdered, Rosie Cooper is the subject of a far-right murder plot, and several other MPs have to report death threats to the police on an outrageously regular basis. These are perilous and difficult times.

Only a year has passed since the bizarre debacle that befell Owen Patterson, when the government threw everything it had into a rule-change to protect a named individual at the last moment from a disciplinary process—which in my book is the opposite of due process.

Since then, the Standards Committee has issued a new draft Code of Conduct, which will tighten the rules on paid lobbying, closing a loophole that Patterson tried to exploit and ban MPs from doing paid work as a parliamentary adviser, consultant or strategist. The good news is that the government agrees on all of these points. We also recommended that MPs in an outside role be required to have a contract specifying that they cannot pressure ministers or officials on behalf of their employer. You’d think this was the minimum required to remove paid lobbying problems, but the government opposed it until this week. Agree now.

What I find hard to believe is that the government is still holding on to another change we recommended, which would greatly improve transparency. As it is, MPs are required to register any external financial interests including travel, gifts and hospitality over £300 in value, with full details, within 28 days. Parliament then publishes those details in two weeks or so. But since 2015, ministers have benefited from the exemption, which means they don’t record anything they receive in a “ministerial capacity”.

Such interests are supposed to be published in government “transparency returns,” which are short on detail, appear roughly every three months and are often late and incomplete. This is crazy. This means that there is less transparency for ministers than for other deputies. Several Ministers have told me that they would very much prefer to have one place for everything to be announced, which is Parliament, and it must certainly be in the public interest that all MPs be treated equally and that all financial interests be reached in a timely and place one online. Furthermore, ministerial law required ministers to register hospitality as a home minister if it was “on such a scale or of a source that it might reasonably be thought likely to affect ministerial work”.

The Standards Commissioner, the Government Think Tank, and the 1922 Commission all agree. But no, the government is holding out. Penny Mordaunt vows that she will do “something” about this as head of the house “by next summer”. But this will not include ending the ministerial exemption because she appears to insist that ministers be treated differently.

It baffles me that the government thinks it can afford another row over parliamentary standards. I don’t think this is in the interest of parliament, let alone the government. Traditionally, House of Commons rules are not a partisan matter. Members of Parliament are supposed to be able to vote freely and with their conscience in the business of the House of Commons.

In recent years, the government has whipped every blip of parliamentary business, but I hope the whips will stay out on Monday when the House of Commons debates and votes on the new code of conduct. Otherwise you will feel like Owen Patterson all over again. Voters may conclude that the government has learned absolutely nothing. Far better to have a unanimous decision by the entire House of Commons without a vote to tighten the rules and put our house in order.

[ad_2]