Committee on Standards

This session scrutinised the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (PCS) and the Office of the PCS, focusing on how MPs’ conduct is regulated, how cases are triaged, and how guidance is provided to Members. Key points included: the PCS uses a three-test threshold before opening a public investigation (sufficient evidence of a breach, justification, proportionality); in 2024-25 the office received 2,955 written Allegations/inquiries, but only 15 led to code-of-conduct investigations; the office emphasises support for Members and wider governance, including use of words of advice and published advice notes to provide consistent guidance; there is ongoing discussion about the complexity of the standards landscape and the potential role of an overarching Ethics and Integrity Commission; questions were raised about public trust, media engagement, and the independence of the PCS vs Committee oversight; progress on aligning ministerial and MPs’ financial disclosures remains stalled, with a plan to raise this with the Ethics and Integrity Commission; and the PCS acknowledged the balance between transparency (naming Members under investigation) and reputational impact, including use of rebuttals where necessary. The witnesses emphasised independence and described how guidance notes and advice are used to support good practice rather than to broaden the formal code.

The evidence session scrutinised how MPs’ outside employment and conflicts are managed across the legal profession and judiciary, drawing on the Bar Standards Board (BSB), the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and an academic expert from UCL. Key takeaways include: (i) the regulators describe outside activities as largely unregulated in practice for solicitors and barristers, with a strong emphasis on identifying and managing conflicts; (ii) judges are not regulated by a single regulator and rely on statutory prohibitions, constitutional conventions, common law, appointment terms, and the Judicial Code of Conduct to manage conflicts; (iii) the regulatory approach for lawyers has shifted from rules-based to principles-based regulation, with ongoing emphasis on ethics training, professional development and guidance (not tick-box compliance); (iv) monitoring of outside interests is largely complaint-driven, with no comprehensive register or routine documentation of outside earnings by the judiciary, and only limited firm-level registers for solicitors; (v) there are nuanced differences between salaried and fee-paid judges, including restrictions on legal practice and political activity; (vi) MPs might benefit from explicit, principles-based guidance to reflect accountability to the electorate and maintain integrity, as discussed by the witnesses. The session did not produce a government commitment to tighten regulation, but it highlighted regulatory positions and practical governance mechanisms across the legal profession and judiciary.

The committee scrutinised how outside interests and employment are regulated for MPs and how a professional regulator governs doctors’ outside activities. Witnesses argued for a principles-based framework complemented by pragmatic guidance and a “safe harbour” mechanism, while acknowledging resource and enforceability challenges. The GMC described a predominantly principles-based regime (not a list of prohibited activities), relying on revalidation, responsible officers, an ethics inquiry service, and employer-based governance, and emphasised transparency, contextual understanding, and supportive enforcement rather than punitive action. Key legislative reference discussed was the Medical Act 1983, alongside the GMC’s Good medical practice and revalidation processes. The session illuminated contrasts between Parliament’s pursuit of balance and public trust, and the GMC’s focus on patient safety and professional standards in medicine.”,

This session scrutinised MPs’ outside employment, including media-hosting roles, and the adequacy of transparency and anti-corruption safeguards. Witnesses from LBC outlined editorial safeguards to maintain impartiality in current affairs programming and signposting to audiences that MPs are participating, while a second panel of academics and civil-society representatives argued for stronger rules on second jobs, lobbying, and the quality of transparency data. Key themes included: the balance between openness to public engagement and risk of conflicts of interest; the need for clearer exemptions (professional registrations, essential public service) from any prohibition on outside work; the case for strengthening lobbying controls and reforming the transparency regime (including data-quality improvements for Registers of Members’ Interests); and the debate over a principles-based versus rules-based approach, including challenges in enforcing a “full attention” standard. No government policy commitment was stated in this session; instead witnesses framed options for reform and noted ongoing Ofcom considerations and Modernisation Committee work.

The Evidence session analysed how Ofcom regulates broadcasting in relation to MPs’ appearances and outside interests, focusing on rule 5.3 (politicians presenting the news) and the balance with impartiality and accuracy. Ofcom explained that the Communications Act 2003 requires news to be presented with due impartiality and reported with due accuracy; they are consulting on extending rule 5.3 so politicians cannot present the news or report on it in any programme, following a High Court clarification. They outlined plans to regulate on-demand services via a video-on-demand code (tier-1 players, potentially Netflix/Disney+). They discussed audience research showing broadcast news is trusted more than online content, while social media use for news is rising, and noted no consensus on banning politicians from appearing in current affairs. Ofcom emphasised their post-broadcast, broadcaster-centered remit and that social media regulation falls under the Online Safety Act, not Ofcom, though media literacy remains a core duty. They referenced the GB News judgement as prompting broadcasters to adjust practices, and offered to share further data with the Committee. They acknowledged Parliament/Government set the mandate for wider regulation and noted they do not regulate presenter remuneration. Overall, the session crystallised Ofcom’s current stance, the scope of its powers, and the regulatory gaps likely to concern Parliament as news consumption shifts online.

The Committee on Standards examined outside interests and employment by MPs, focusing on how rules should be structured. Daniel Greenberg, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, outlined three areas for consideration: (1) principles-based rules that are simple and purpose-driven; (2) transparency as part of the rule-making process; and (3) enforceability considerations from the outset. He argued against a blanket ban on outside work, signalling a balanced approach that weighs conflicts of interest, attention, and trust. The discussion also covered how the existing code (including Chapter 2 on declarations and Chapter 4 on paid parliamentary advice) informs testing of conflicts, the use of written contracts, enforcement thresholds (notably Rule 11 on reputational damage), and the role of training and written guidance to assist MPs. The Leader of the House is cited as preferring a balanced approach rather than a total prohibition. The session also touched on media appearances, procurement integrity to avoid imputation of influence, and the importance of articulating reasoning in committee reports to aid MPs and the public.