MPs May Block New Rules That Would Punish Them For Private Indiscretions

Posted: 12/03/2012 07:56 Updated: 12/03/2012 08:19   PA

Parliament

MPs will today bid to block new rules that could see them punished for indiscretions in their private lives.

A revised Code of Conduct 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 UK POLITICS

MPs will today bid to block new rules that could see them punished for indiscretions in their private lives. A revised Code of Conduct states that politicians should not do anything that would "cau...
MPs will today bid to block new rules that could see them punished for indiscretions in their private lives. A revised Code of Conduct states that politicians should not do anything that would "cau...
Filed by Ned Simons  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 11
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dombeyandson
12:27 PM on 03/14/2012
A revised Code of Conduct states that politicians should not do anything that would "cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons". Like forming a government of no hope you mean? However, a cross-party group [a very cross] has tabled an amendment amid fears that individuals could be censured or even suspended for actions that have no bearing on their duties. So it is to be "Carry on Up the MP". We shall certainly not be getting what we pay for then in what is fast becoming - no continuing to be "Jobs for the Boys". Makes Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil a thing of the past if they get their way. I'm sure Shepherds Market will be pleased.
photo
vividrick
I came, I saw...I had a cup of tea!
10:37 PM on 03/12/2012
The expenses scandal has clearly gave them the willies!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:58 PM on 03/12/2012
Hypocracy.
photo
tc-byrne
Victoria Concordia Crescit
01:47 PM on 03/12/2012
These people are supposed to be the pillars of society and should conduct themselves accordingly in all aspects of life, if we brought the company's name into disrepute, whether at work or in our private live's we would be sacked for gross misconduct, just another safeguard for the teflon don's
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dombeyandson
12:29 PM on 03/14/2012
Remember the last lot of pillars holding up the self important? A blind man pushed them down
photo
casual agent
Advocate for social justice
01:14 PM on 03/12/2012
So a law unto themselves' then'..Mmm..Twas ever thus...So what point is there in these proposals?...Or is it another Government Quango'..Where scandals could be vetted before they are out in the public view?...Other than that'..I can't see why they want this stupid Committee?..I also noticed that this involed Tory and Libdem' members'...Can't see any mention of Labour members...Anyone...?
lastpost
see biography
01:09 PM on 03/12/2012
"A revised Code of Conduct states that politicians should not do anything that would "cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons".
Such as preventing an effective revised Code of Conduct from being brought in to raise parliamentary standards? Doh!

"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."
So, no whips being brought in on this one?

"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."
In the event of a hung decision, fox votes would count for more than those cast by any and all chickens.

"and may not vote," it states"
Sorry. Seems the chickens don’t actually get a vote.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Matthew Harrold
Huzzah!
11:47 AM on 03/12/2012
To be honest MPs shouldn't be held accountable for what happens in their private lives - voters can do that. What needs to happen is that corruption and crony capitalism need to be stamped out, but then that would be actually doing something effective and not pandering to the circus theatrics that keep voters occupied.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
famullar
11:32 AM on 03/12/2012
Nothing surprise me these days. Honest . We have no sincere leaders. I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA
10:18 AM on 03/12/2012
Rules should be aimed at combatting corruption.

What an MP does in his or her private life that is not aimed at monetary gain or paternalism, nepotism etc., should have no bearing here. If an MP wants to lead a seedy sex life then let them ... the electorate will determine if they are still fit at the next election.
northern git
fed up with all the political crap in life
08:33 AM on 03/12/2012
and on the expenses column goes a very liberal (nay generous) helping of teflon

enough to make Blair and Clinto look positively sticky and tacky