On one level, a review of the Code of Conduct for MPs is welcome. It is only sensible that it is subject to regular and comprehensive review, to ensure that the system of parliamentary discipline commands public confidence.
Unfortunately the background to this review makes it impossible to welcome this development wholeheartedly. For the code was recently instrumental to decisions that reflect very badly on that same system of discipline. We refer to the case of Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, former members of the House. A Telegraph/Channel Four investigation last year found they had offered to use their positions as MPs on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company, in return for payment.
The evidence revealed by our reporters was clear enough for Ofcom, the statutory regulator of the broadcasting industry, to conclude that Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw had sought to “exploit their experience and connections” for personal gain. Yet Kathryn Hudson, the Parliamentary standards commissioner, found that they had not breached the Code of Conduct.
In that context, the decision to review the code will inevitably lead many to wonder if the Commons authorities now accept that the decision to spare Sir Malcolm and Mr Straw was mistaken and should not be repeated. If so, they would be correct, but their response remains inadequate.
Ms Hudson reports to MPs, and MPs will have the final say on the revised code. Whatever changes they allow, MPs will continue to mark their own homework and that is unacceptable. The system of parliamentary discipline does not need a review or a rewrite. It needs to be scrapped and replaced with truly independent scrutiny.
Source: http://telegraph.feedsportal.com/c/32726/f/579309/s/4d0ba869/sc/24/l/0L0Stelegraph0O0Cnews0Cpolitics0C121136480CRevising0EMPs0Erulebook0Eis0Enot0Eenough0Bhtml/story01.htm