Commons Standards and Privileges Committee

Commons Standards and Privileges Committee
Name	Commons Standards and Privileges Committee
Type	Select committee
Legislature	House of Commons
Formed	2018
Successor	Committee on Standards and Privileges
Jurisdiction	Parliament of the United Kingdom
Chair	Sir Bernard Jenkin
Membership	15

Commons Standards and Privileges Committee The Commons Standards and Privileges Committee was a joint standards and privileges select committee in the House of Commons that examined conduct, ethics, and parliamentary privilege, responding to allegations involving Members of Parliament such as Chris Huhne, Amber Rudd, John Bercow, Margaret Beckett and Gavin Williamson while interacting with bodies including the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the House of Lords.

History

Formed in the wake of controversies like the Expenses scandal (United Kingdom) and debates involving figures such as David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson, the committee replaced earlier arrangements established after the Parliament Act 1911, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and reforms following reports by Sir Philip Mawer and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It operated during parliamentary sessions that included the 2017 United Kingdom general election and the 2019 United Kingdom general election, and its remit evolved alongside inquiries into conduct exemplified by cases associated with Liam Fox, Priti Patel, Owen Paterson and Elliot Morley.

Remit and Powers

The committee's remit covered investigations into alleged breaches of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, relations with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and matters of privilege connected to proceedings under the Parliamentary Privilege Act framework and precedents set in disputes involving the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk of the House, Tony Blair, Theresa May and Keir Starmer. It had powers to request evidence from public figures such as Dominic Grieve, Jack Straw, Alastair Campbell, Shami Chakrabarti and to refer matters to the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to impose sanctions aligned with past measures used in cases associated with Neil Hamilton, Jonathan Aitken, John Profumo and Dame Harriet Harman.

Membership and Appointment

Members were appointed from across parties including MPs from Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party and others, with chairs drawn from experienced parliamentarians such as Sir Bernard Jenkin and predecessors with backgrounds similar to Keith Vaz, Sir Paul Beresford, Sir Alan Haselhurst and Dame Margaret Hodge. Appointments involved the Committee of Selection, coordination with the Speaker of the House of Commons, and considerations influenced by external actors like the Electoral Commission, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and recommendations echoing reforms advocated by Lord Nolan, Sir Christopher Kelly and Sir John Major.

Procedures and Investigations

Procedures followed an investigative pathway using submissions to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, public hearings resembling those in inquiries led by Sir Robert Owen, documentary requests comparable to those issued in investigations of News International and witness summonses paralleling procedures used in the Leveson Inquiry. Investigations could draw on testimony from MPs, aides and officials linked to personalities such as George Osborne, Iain Duncan Smith, Michael Gove, Amber Rudd and Liz Truss and used established evidentiary practices reflected in cases involving Andrew Mitchell, Chris Huhne and Mark Reckless. The committee balanced confidentiality and transparency consistent with precedents from the Committee on Standards and Privileges and rulings made by the Speaker and the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on parliamentary privilege.

Reports and Outcomes

Reports produced recommendations that led to sanctions, apologies, suspension motions and referrals to police in high-profile instances involving figures with careers intersecting Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Tom Watson, Dame Caroline Spelman and Alison McGovern. Outcomes influenced changes to the House of Commons Code of Conduct, statutory arrangements with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, training overseen by the Cabinet Office, and follow-up reviews by bodies such as the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee, and the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Some reports prompted parliamentary debates in which MPs referenced precedents from the Zinoviev letter, the Pimlico Plumbers case and judicial decisions from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Controversies and Criticism

The committee attracted criticism from commentators and politicians including Iain Dale, Norman Smith, Peter Oborne, Tom Bower and figures from parties like the Green Party of England and Wales and Plaid Cymru, who argued that its processes lacked independence compared with judicial standards established by inquiries such as the Hillsborough Inquiry and that political self-regulation resembled earlier failures seen in the Expenses scandal (United Kingdom), the Cash-for-Questions scandal and controversies surrounding Owen Paterson. Critics cited tensions involving the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, contested rulings by the Speaker and disputes with the House of Lords over privilege, calling for reforms inspired by recommendations from Lord Neuberger, Sir Keir Starmer and the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Category:Parliamentary committees of the United Kingdom