Members Of Parliament Seek To Block New Code Of Conduct Rules, That Could Highlight Indiscretions

Houses Of Parliament

First Posted: 11/03/2012 14:33 Updated: 11/03/2012 14:33   PA

MPs are seeking to block new rules that could see them punished for indiscretions in their private lives.

A revised Code of Conduct being considered tomorrow states that politicians should not do anything that would "cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons".

However, a cross-party group has tabled an amendment amid fears that individuals could be censured or even suspended for actions that have no bearing on their duties.

The MPs - including Tory 1922 committee chairman Graham Brady and former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell - want to add a line specifying that the standards commissioner "may not investigate a specific matter under paragraph 16 which relates only to the conduct of a Member in their private and personal lives".

As well as the new Code of Conduct, MPs are due to consider changes that would see the public help investigate allegations of wrongdoing.

The plans would create a Standards Committee made up of 10 MPs and two or three lay members, who would be approved by the whole House.

However, the motion put forward by Leader of the House Sir George Young makes clear that the members of the public will not be able to decide on punishments.

"Lay members may take part in proceedings of the committee and of any sub-committee to which they are appointed and may ask questions of witnesses, but lay members may not move any motion or any amendment to any motion or draft report, and may not vote," it states.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

Filed by Caroline Frost  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 13
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
08:06 AM on 03/12/2012
STANDARDS - don't make me laugh. You can't lower the standards of this bunch of self serving creeps any further except by making them Bankers.
09:15 PM on 03/11/2012
When your run for puboic office, your private life becomes public. Bankrupt people are bared from parialment until their bankruptccies have been disharged. Other "private indiscrestions whould also be considered. If a member of parliament hires an illegal allien as a cleaning person fo their home, for example, how can they be trusted on issues concerning illegals? If a member of parliament repeatedly is involed in frunk and disoderly incidents, how can his judgement be trusted on votes. If a member of palieament batters his wife, how can he be trusted to be fair on women's issues? The list goes on. Yes, members of parliament should be held accountable for their indicressions.
08:34 PM on 03/11/2012
A "Standards Committee" made up of 10 MPs sound like a total, one sided, waste of time. It will be about as effective as a jury of 12 prison inmates in a court of law. There is no way the 10 MPs will be able to offer an unbiased judgement. Better to have a publicly elected body, who are not allowed to be politicians. Perhaps the Queen could decide on the punishment.
08:07 AM on 03/12/2012
Good idea - I think there is still a block and axe in the Tower!
07:30 PM on 03/11/2012
A very good friend of mine, obtained a job as a school caretaker.
He told no lies in interviewing for the job, nor did he hold anything back, he declared a previous conviction for an offence which could in no way be related to danger for the kids, he served over twelve moths in that job, was well liked by local parents, the school staff, the headmaster and most importantly the kids. Not that he really had much direct contact with them.

Suddenly without warning, having just been given a bonus and an increase in pay, he received a letter terminating him.

The cause being, the offence he had declared came up, and because he had given a chap a beating when he caught him in bed with his wife, the education authority, acting on police advice, reckoned he may one day attack one of the staff or a parent.

The conviction was 14 years previous to him being engaged at the school..

So, if this can happen to a lowly school caretaker,. there is more than enough fairness that anything shady with an MP comes to light, he too should fall on his sword. or does this sort of critical chastisement only apply to a worker on basic pay?.
06:56 PM on 03/11/2012
This already applies to some jobs, like the police. They forget they are there to represent us. Act in our interests. They shold have an inappropriate association policy, this coldpreventbthem mixing with persons or groups that would bring discredit on the service they provide.
08:09 AM on 03/12/2012
Like the Press? That worked well!
05:03 PM on 03/11/2012
They should seek to block serving booze in the Houses of Parliament.Where else ( except in a licensed premises etc.) can a worker buy booze at his place of employment?
08:10 AM on 03/12/2012
Worst of all we subsibise the Boozing of these self serving creeps!
03:32 PM on 03/11/2012
This is no longer the Victorian age. If a politician is engaging in pre- or extra-marital sex, provided it is consensual and doesn't involve people below the age of sixteen, it should be of no concern to the public.

If an politician is commiting crimes while serving as an MP, the public have every right to be concerned.
03:23 PM on 03/11/2012
Considering the majority of M.Ps are narcissists or at the very least tick at least half a dozen boxes in Hare's Psychopathy Checklist, I reckon the folks on the Standards Committee are going to be very busy little bees.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David Daisy May Boldock
Yorkshire..Gods Own Country
03:47 PM on 03/11/2012
Busier than the Politicians indeed
03:10 PM on 03/11/2012
what kind of indiscrestions, affair? cheating on taxes? Politcans in US can be censured for cerian activities, usually illegal ones.