Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Nadine Dorries has not breached the MPs’ Code of Conduct by failing to speak in Parliament for over a year, the parliamentary Standards Commissioner has ruled.
Campaign group Unlock Democracy had complained that the Tory MP for Mid Bedfordshire – who hasn’t spoken in the Commons since last July – was undermining parliament. She is not thought to have held a regular constituency surgery in several years and it is not clear if she still has a constituency office.
The Boris Johnson loyalist pledged to resign “with immediate effect” two months ago – but has yet to do so, instead claiming she is staying to mount her own investigation into why she didn’t get a peerage. She has found the time to present a show on Murdoch-owned TalkTV however.
Last month, a town council in her seat called for her to quit so her constituents had proper representation in parliament. She has voted just ten times in the Commons since last July, while her last spoken contribution was in a debate on full fibre broadband over a year ago.
Unlock Democracy’s complaint was based on the rule that: “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”
Don’t miss a story
But the Standards Commissioner ruled that “there is no specific ‘service standard’ or exact job description for MPs, or a minimum number of hours of attendance required by the House.”
Daniel Greenberg CB’s office said: “It is for each individual MP to decide for themselves how they undertake the role of MP, and the Commissioner could not investigate an MP based on their level of, or lack, of attendance.”
The standards watchdog said that for the Commissioner to initiate an investigation into the rule on undermining that reputation of the Commons, “he would need to be satisfied that a Member’s actions caused significant damage and any such damage would need to impact more widely than on the reputation and integrity of the Member involved. As I’m sure you can appreciate, this is an extremely high bar.”
“The Committee on Standards has been clear that it would expect a breach to occur only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances. Conduct which might be considered to reflect badly on the MP concerned is not, in itself, a basis for the Commissioner to begin an inquiry into an allegation of a breach of paragraph 11,” the Standards Commissioner noted.
“Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Commissioner will not be opening a formal investigation into the matters you have raised.”
Unlock Democracy responded in an email to supporters: “While we’re disappointed, we’re not surprised. The Commissioner is there to enforce the rules as they stand and the rules are completely inadequate.
“If an MP rarely bothers to turn up for work, that’s fine apparently, because as the Commissioner points out, there is ‘no exact job description for MPs’. We think this needs to change.”
Former Lib Dem MP Tom Brake, UD’s director, added: “The real issue here is the outdated rules of Parliament. The role of an MP is a challenging one – I know that from personal experience. The vast majority of MPs work extremely hard for their constituents, but in recent years we’ve seen more MPs, like Ms Dorries, take advantage of the outdated rules.
“I can’t think of any other job where there’s no specific ‘service standard’ or job description, or minimum hours of attendance required. It really is one rule for MPs and another for the rest of us.”
Unlock Democracy is calling for the MPs’ code of conduct to be changed, adding: “A requirement to turn up to Parliament on a regular basis seems to be the bare minimum.”
Disbelief
Thousands have responded to the group’s survey on how the rules for MPs should be reformed.
Byline Times’ author’s own twitter post on the issue received nearly 1,000 replies – nearly all calling for an overhaul of parliamentary standards and for Dorries to step down.
Some of the comments included Byline Times supporter and The Trawl host Marina Purkiss saying: “The MPs code of conduct isn’t fit for purpose.”
Journalist Ben Smoke added: “in what other job could you simply not turn up to work for a year and be found to have been within the code of conduct.”
Theresa Crawford added: “So are we to conclude that MP’s do not need to bother turning up to Parliament in over a year? And that MP’s can host TV shows instead? And that MP’s don’t need to bother with constituents? If so, what ARE MP’s duties?”
And Brian Hunter joked that the ruling meant the standards commissioner “determined that she does ‘more harm than good’ when attending parliament and have concluded her behaviour was in the public interest.”
Nadine Dorries was contacted for comment.
Letter from Standards Commissioner to Tom Brake
Dear Mr Brake, Thank you again for your letter dated 2 August 2023. The Commissioner has asked that I share the following reply with you.
You will know that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is appointed to investigate allegations of breaches of the Code of Conduct for Members. The role and powers of the Commissioner are set out in Standing Order No. 150. He can only consider opening an investigation into alleged breaches of the rules of conduct when he receives allegations that are supported by evidence.
In your letter you have alleged that Ms Dorries has breached rule D2 and D11 of the Code of Conduct. Paragraph 2 of the Code states that, “Members must base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest”.
As you will be aware, there is no specific ‘service standard’ or exact job description for MPs, or a minimum number of hours of attendance required by the House. It is for each individual MP to decide for themselves how they undertake the role of MP, and the Commissioner could not investigate an MP based on their level of, or lack, of attendance.
With regards the allegation that the Member has breached paragraph 11 of the Code, which states that “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally”. For the Commissioner to initiate an investigation into this rule, he would need to be satisfied that a Member’s actions caused significant damage and any such damage would need to impact more widely than on the reputation and integrity of the Member involved.
As I’m sure you can appreciate, this is an extremely high bar, and the Committee on Standards has been clear that it would expect a breach to occur only in extreme and extremely limited circumstances. Conduct which might be considered to reflect badly on the MP concerned is not, in itself, a basis for the Commissioner to begin an inquiry into an allegation of a breach of paragraph 11.
Therefore, for the reasons detailed above, the Commissioner will not be opening a formal investigation into the matters you have raised.
However, I should also explain that the Commissioner’s responsibilities are wider than investigating complaints, and he takes careful note of concerns raised by members of the public relating to parliamentary standards. Those concerns feed in to the Commissioner’s wider remit in the following ways:
The Commissioner monitors parliamentary standards and gives advice in different forms to Members, individually and collectively, designed to enhance implementation in the performance of MP’s functions of the Seven Principles of Public Life that underpin the Code of Conduct (openness, accountability, honesty, integrity, objectivity, selflessness and leadership).
In particular, from time to time, the Commissioner advises Members on standards of openness and accountability, as well as other matters relevant to MPs’ interactions with their constituents and the public (for example, you will see some Advice Notes that the Commissioner has issued on these topics at PSC Advice Notes – UK Parliament).
The Commissioner reports on his work to the House of Commons each year, and he will use these Reports to draw attention to matters of concern to the public which for one reason or another have not given rise to individual investigations…
The Commissioner is very grateful to you for taking the trouble to write, and will be taking careful account of the content of your letter in the course of the activities described above.
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com