In this blog post, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Daniel Greenberg CB, discusses the key themes of his first months in post, providing a snapshot of the top issues he and his team are working on. The Commissioner’s Annual Report 2022-23 was published on 12 July.

Engagement and outreach are priorities for my five-year term, as I hope to explore and address the causes of low public engagement with the political system and parliament.

In my first annual report, which was published this week, I describe the work my team and I are undertaking to support this work, including a series of Principles in Practice seminars, in and outside Westminster, that explore how the Seven Principles of Public Life (that underpin the Code of Conduct for MPs, and which are also known as the Nolan Principles) already inspire the day-to-day workings of MPs’ offices. Appendix 5 of the report includes anonymised case studies drawn from MPs’ offices, to share and inspire examples of principles-driven best practice.

My report also contains my reflections, informed by my engagement with the hundreds of emails, letters and calls my office receives from members of the public each month, on two of the most prevalent topics of complaint that I receive: MPs’ responsiveness to constituency correspondence; and the language and tone of some MPs’ expression of views and opinions.

MPs’ responsiveness to constituency correspondence

I am concerned about the very large number of complaints that I receive about lack of responsiveness to constituency correspondence, which suggest that there is a general perception on the part of some members of the public that some MPs are not attaching sufficient importance to responding to enquiries and other correspondence from constituents.

My concern about MP responsiveness to constituency correspondence arises from the general perspective of the importance of MPs upholding the Principles of Public Life in the performance of their duties and functions. In particular, in handling correspondence with members of the public, MPs clearly need to reflect the principles of openness and accountability.

I believe that the large majority of MPs operate impressively effective systems for responding to the large volume of correspondence that they receive from their constituents, and that they have a consistently impressive track record of taking up issues raised by constituents in a timely and helpful manner. My assessment takes into account that there are instances where the MP simply cannot intervene or offer substantive help.

There are, however, a number of MPs about whom I receive a sufficient number of complaints of failure to respond to constituents to make me wonder whether they are operating as effectively as they should be. I would urge MPs to seek and share best practice with their colleagues, in the interests of individual constituents and of parliament itself.

It would be wrong for me to be in any sense prescriptive about what standards of responsiveness are appropriate for MPs in order for them to maximise the transparency and accountability of their operations. Each MP must decide for themselves what works best for them and their constituents.

Open surgeries are immensely valued by constituents; but I am aware that many MPs have reluctantly been forced to change their surgery arrangements in various ways as a result of security concerns. Obviously, security of MPs, their staff, and visitors to surgeries must be paramount.

While each MP will determine their own arrangements for practical transparency and accountability, I do not consider that it is acceptable in today’s environment for any MP to refuse to receive electronic communications, or to insist on receiving only electronic communications. Writing a physical letter and posting it is expensive and slow, and is counter-intuitive for many constituents. Equally, it should not be assumed that every constituent has access to email or the internet, and some of the most vulnerable constituents most in need of their MP’s help may not have that kind of access.

Language and tone of some MPs’ expression of views and opinions

I am concerned about the volume of complaints I receive from the public about the language and tone that some MPs choose to use in expressing their views and opinions, including on social media. I have seen numerous examples of MPs’ language that could reasonably be regarded as offensive or aggressive, or which contains what could be construed as personal attacks.

In the Commons chamber, the Speaker enforces rules designed to ensure that however sharply MPs may disagree on an issue they are required to do it in language which remains respectful. I see no reason why MPs should not set themselves similarly exacting standards in their political debates outside the Chamber.

In my report, I remind MPs that they are obliged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, including the principles of integrity and leadership, and in connection with their parliamentary activities, whether in Westminster or elsewhere, they are subject to the Behaviour Code, which includes the principles–based requirements to:

• Recognise your power, influence or authority and don’t abuse them;
• Think about how your behaviour affects others and strive to understand their perspective;
• Act professionally towards others;
• Ensure parliament meets the highest ethical standards of integrity, courtesy and mutual respect;
• Speak up about any unacceptable behaviour you see.

It therefore remains important for MPs to consider the tone and language that they adopt on social media and in other forums outside the Commons chamber. This is not merely so as to avoid a breach of the Behaviour Code, but more importantly to reflect the concern that many members of the public have expressed that they wish to be able to respect MPs for their restraint and care in the language that they use to each other, following the Nolan Principle of leadership in setting an example of how sharp disagreement on policy can be expressed and explored without resorting to obscenity, abuse or merely personal insult.

This is an issue that has troubled me particularly because it clearly troubles so many members of the public, and is therefore clearly capable of damaging trust between the public and politicians. I earnestly encourage all MPs to take stock of their present practices and I look forward very much to being able to report next year that best practice has become the norm.

The 2023 Code of Conduct

The report also discusses the key changes and developments in the 2023 Code of Conduct and Guide to the Rules, including a ban on MPs providing, or agreeing to provide, paid parliamentary advice; the removal of the distinction between ‘initiating’ and ‘participating’ in proceedings or approaches, so that the paid lobbying rules apply equally to both; and a requirement that any MP taking on any formal paid employment with an outside body must obtain a written contract or statement of particulars detailing their duties. As requested by the Committee on Standards in its report on the 2023 Code, I have published and circulated to all MPs a template clause on lobbying to assist them in complying with this requirement.

As the Code and Guide to the Rules make clear, all MPs are individually responsible for their adherence to the Code. My program of engagement work to support MPs in applying the Code includes publication of a series of practical advice notes for MPs and interested parties.

Advice Notes are designed to supplement and clarify (and not to supersede or contradict) provisions of the Code. Each Advice Note makes clear that where specific or formal advice is required by an MP for a particular situation, my office will be happy to provide it – and since commencing my term I have met and advised many MPs in confidence in response to such requests.

Commissioner’s Advice Note	Summary
Template provision on lobbying for reward	‘Advice Note provided in accordance with paragraph 95 of the Committee’s First Report of Session 2022-23, in which the Committee proposes to ask the Commissioner to advise “on wording for a template clause and letter of undertaking which satisfies the requirements of the new rule.’
Transparency of registration of income, donations and other financial interests	‘When considering registrable interests MPs should aim to maximise transparency and accountability. Register entries should aim to describe the real-world source of income or donations. Giving full details of income reduces the risk of confusion or misrepresentation.’
Late registration of interests	‘Too many MPs are registering interests late. This undermines the registration system. MPs are personally responsible for timely registration. Future breaches will be investigated and reported for sanction.’
Registration of charitable donations	‘Money paid to charity (or to any other third party) at the direction of a MP remains registrable by the MP.’
MPs writing to judges	‘MPs should not generally write to judges. Letters from MPs will generally appear as attempts to interfere with legal proceedings, which is a breach of the separation of powers. MPs can provide character references in cases in the same way as anyone else.’
Paid parliamentary advice	‘When applying the new prohibition against the provision of paid Parliamentary advice and consultancy, MPs should ask themselves whether the potential payer is seeking to “buy” the services of an MP in their capacity as such (which is prohibited) or to take advantage of non-Parliamentary professional or other skills or expertise which the MP happens to have (which is permitted).’
Lobbying after visits	‘When an MP goes on a funded visit, the rules on paid lobbying prevent the MP from seeking a benefit for the body that funded the visit; they do not prevent any other lobbying about the place visited or related matters.’
Crowdfunding	‘There is no objection to MPs using crowdfunding campaigns to raise money; but it is their responsibility to ensure that registration requirements are met, and permissible donation laws are observed, in respect of all donations. Fully anonymous donations should not be accepted.’

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Regarding my oversight role in cases within the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) with MP respondents, in the report I underline the responsibility of MPs, as with all members of the parliamentary community, to uphold parliament’s Behaviour Code, quoted above.

I also discuss the new oversight agreement with the ICGS, which is aimed to support the Scheme to improve quality, including the timeliness, of investigations.

Digitisation of the registers

The report contains an update on the digitisation of the Registers, including the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and statistical information on the Register of All-Party Parliamentary Groups, Register of Members’ Secretaries and Research Assistants, and Register of Journalists’ Interests.

If you have questions or comments about the Commissioner’s Annual Report, please contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards at standardscommissioner@parliament.uk.

The Commissioner’s annual report was published on 12 July and is available to download now.

If you are interested in the subject of this post, then we recommend watching the Constitutional Standards panel from the Unit’s annual conference, which took place in late June.

The full list of panels, with links to video and podcast versions of each section of the conference, is on the Unit website.

About the author

Daniel Greenberg CB is the Parliamentary Commission for Standards.