Standards of behaviour among politicians have been an increasingly fraught issue since the 1990s. Cash for questions, back to basics and the expenses scandal all seemed to indicate a degree of venality among Members of Parliament, who are supposed to be public servants.
This has led to a series of attempts to change the way Parliament investigates and responds to breaches of various codes. It is currently divided into two main parts, excluding expenses and privileges, both of which ultimately end up in the Chamber of the House.
Personal contact is governed by the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS). It covers bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, and covers all pass holders in the Palace of Westminster. Most complaints to the ICGS, indeed the overwhelming majority, do not involve Members of Parliament themselves, but inevitably and rightly these are the ones that receive the greatest attention.
In this process, if someone makes a complaint, it is subject to an initial assessment, where people working for the ICGS will decide if there is enough evidence to go further. If there is, it passes to a full assessment, which is an investigation that interviews witnesses and reports to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who will then decide whether the Member of Parliament is guilty and, if so, what level of sanction ought to be imposed.
The most serious sanctions are decided by an independent expert panel (IEP) , which may recommend a suspension or even expulsion from the House. The IEP also hears appeals from both the complainant and the respondent to any complaint. Unlike in the court system, the complainant has a right of appeal.
Breaches of the Members’ Code of Conduct, which covers declarations of interest and includes the Nolan Principles, are handled differently. It is this process that currently has Nigel Farage in its claws. In these cases, the Commissioner for Standards will initially investigate, and may then decide that there is no case to answer. This happened on a number of occasions to me when politically motivated complaints were made. The Commissioner may determine the issue by requiring rectification, which could involve an apology, while more serious cases may be referred to the Committee on Standards.
