3 min read
People who stand to be MPs should not be expected to be “saints”, the recently-elected Standards Committee chair has said, adding that punishments for minor parliamentary rules breaches are too “severe”.
In an interview with The House magazine, Alberto Costa said MPs are “held to a higher standard”, which is “generally right”. However, he said MPs should not be held to such a high standard “that you are requiring saints to stand forward for election”.
The Conservative MP for South Leicestershire said: “I am not and never have been a saint. I am a fallible human being like anyone else. To err is human.”
MPs must abide by a strict Code of Conduct throughout their time in Parliament. This means ensuring rules around lobbying, receiving payment for parliamentary advice and declaring interests are not broken, as well as generally upholding the reputation of Parliament.
Breaching the rules could see an MP investigated by one of several different parliamentary bodies, with the Standards Committee deciding appropriate sanctions in more serious cases.
Asked whether he sympathises with MPs being held to a higher standard than the public, Costa laughed: “Well, I am one of them, so I sympathise with myself.”
He added: “People say, ‘We want more normal people that represent us, that look like us, that act like us.’ Well, when you put a mirror up to society, you’re going to get all sorts of people. So, don’t be surprised when you get all sorts of people then that come into the House.”
Costa called for punishments for MPs breaking minor parliamentary rules to be less “severe”, saying that one of the things he is “not very comfortable with” is when “an MP commits an administrative error” and has to then publicly apologise.
According to the Code of Conduct, MPs must disclose non-parliamentary financial interests or benefits within 28 days of receipt. Breaching this limit leads to an investigation by the parliamentary commissioner for standards.
However, Costa said it is “very easy” to breach the 28-day limit, and that MPs having to make a public apology for what constitutes a “really minor error” is “a bit too severe”.
He said: “I don’t think in the usual workplace for minor breaches of the terms or conditions of contract, people are held to such a high level where they have to make a public apology. That’s just a bit too severe.
“My only interest is: is it helping the public have trust in us or not? And I don’t think it does.”
Costa pointed to the example of former Scottish National Party MP Margaret Ferrier, who was suspended from the House of Commons after breaching Covid lockdown rules – a punishment he found “a little bit too severe”.
“The question that my colleagues and I had to ask was: is this an example of somebody corrupt, or is it an example of somebody that has done something that, there go I but for the grace of God, with a bit of compassion you might understand why she’d done what she did?”
With the Labour Government “committed to modernising processes”, Costa said he hopes there is an opportunity to refine the standards process so that only offences concerning “matters which are not minor” are made public.
He also suggested bullying – which has prompted investigations, then resignations, from high-profile MPs – is a form of misconduct that could be dealt with privately.
“I would have thought that if you were to complain at your place of work, they would try and mediate in private. They would say, ‘look what’s happened here?’, and maybe get a private apology from the person.”
He said: “The concern here is that, actually, it might be a little bit too easy to complain that an MP is bullied, or somebody else is bullied.”
PoliticsHome Newsletters
PoliticsHome provides the most comprehensive coverage of UK politics anywhere on the web, offering high quality original reporting and analysis: Subscribe
+ There are no comments
Add yours