An independent Politicians Complaints Commission, modeled on the Independent Police Complaints Commission, with its Board appointed by a panel of designated NGOs, should be established to investigate accusations about national and local politicians, basing its judgments on the Nolan Committee principles that apply to all public bodies.

As a result of public concern with certain activities of the police force, the Independent Police Complaints Commission was set up. This investigates specific defined events, such as when a member of the public is killed by a policeman on duty, and can also respond to complaints from the general public. It is properly independent and has helped to investigate and determine the validity of various actions by the police.

Unfortunately the politicians have not seen fit to set up an equivalent body to investigate their own behaviour.

Any sanctions against MPs or Lords for their activities are decided by other MPs or Lords who may well have, or at least be seen to have, a vested interest in maintaining generous arrangements and flexibility for their colleagues.

Similarly the appointment and resignation of ministers is solely in the hands of the Prime Minister who is inevitably biased towards protecting the reputation of the minister concerned in order to try to prevent this from rebounding on the reputation of his or her party.

In other areas of public service, and indeed in the private sector, any employee found guilty of corruption or fiddling expenses is likely to be heavily disciplined and probably reported to the police. It is quite clear that the criminal law applies to all such incidents outside Parliament and there is no reason why it should not also do so for MPs and Lords. It is vital if respect for Parliament is to be increased that the public has faith that MPs and Lords are subject to the same sanctions as themselves if they go against the agreed rules and either misspend public money or act in an improper way.

Ministers are subject to The Ministerial Code of Conduct which is set out in a booklet that is required reading of all ministers. However any ministers who violate the Code are only subject to whatever investigation the Prime Minister feels is suitable. Typically the Prime Minister, who is the sole judge and jury of any breaches, will try to defend his or her ministers for as long as possible, often leading to further damaging revelations becoming public.

Prime Ministers defend their ministerial colleagues because it otherwise could be bad for their party. One of the additional advantages of the Jury Team proposals is that it would be easier for the Prime Minister to fire a minister as there would be no party to defend. In the fullness of time the appointment and firing of ministers could become a matter for the relevant Select Committee.

It is clearly unacceptable for MPs, Lords or Ministers not to be subject to proper independent investigation and, if necessary, sanction if they have violated the agreed rules. It has become quite clear that self policing either by the Privileges Committee or by the Prime Minister is not only ineffective but undermines public confidence. The Jury Team therefore proposes the setting up of an independent Politicians Complaints Commission modeled on the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

The Principles that should apply

The seven ‘Nolan Committee’ Principles of Public Life are now well established in all parts of the public sector. They should clearly also apply to MPs, Lords and ministers and should be the basis of the principles used by the independent Politicians Complaints Commission to decide on issues which come before it.

• Selflessness
  Holders of public office should take decisions solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends.
• Integrity
  Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.
• Objectivity
  In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for awards or benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.
• Accountability
  Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.
• Openness
  Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.
• Honesty
  Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.
• Leadership
  Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

The appointment of members of independent commissions is itself fraught with political difficulty under current arrangements. In order to reduce any political interference it was finally agreed by the Government that the members of the Judicial Appointments Commission would be agreed through panels themselves chosen by bodies other than the Government.

This same principle needs to be applied to the membership of the independent Politicians Complaints Commission.