Parliament: MPs looking to learn from lawyers
The chief executives of the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) and Bar Standards Board (BSB) yesterday recommended MPs adopt a principles-based approach to regulating outside interests.
A barrister and leading legal academic also told the House of Commons committee on standards that MPs could learn from judges.
The standards committee was holding an evidence session on lessons from other professions as part of its inquiry into whether there should be changes to the rules relating to outside interests and employment in the code of conduct for MPs.
It is also exploring whether rules-based or principles-based approaches should be applied if there was a “qualified prohibition” on MPs having outside interests.
Asked about the benefits of a rules-based approach to regulating outside interests, SRA chief executive Paul Philip said it moved from a rules-based to a principles-based arrangement just over 10 years ago.
Rules were “subject to the quality of the drafting” and so could only produce “unintended consequences”. They could sometimes “be gamed”.
At the same time, he recounted, solicitors loved “certainty and rule”, and there was “to say it mildly a disappointment” when the SRA moved to a principles-based system. This “looks more to what situation might arise and doesn’t try and create a rule for every situation”.
It was “more holistic” and looked to “the spirit of what was intended” – although he acknowledged that detailed rules were retained in certain areas.
Mark Neale, director general of the Bar Standards Board, said the principles-based approach was the “right one” and had the advantage that it could be applied to barristers’ personal as well as professional lives.
Barrister Dr John Sorabji, a former principal legal adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and Master of the Rolls, said the judiciary had also taken a principles-based approach, which helped “build and maintain a culture of compliance”, and taking an alternative approach would require “an extremely detailed set of rules”.
He said that of the three principles that guided the judicial code of conduct, integrity “seems to be the most appropriate” to apply to MPs.
Dr Sorabji, an associate professor at UCL Faculty of Laws, said in terms of what could be “usefully looked at or transferred over” from the regulation of judges, his “starting point” would be that the judicial code of conduct said “quite clearly that judges should be aware that they are primarily accountable to the law”.
He explained: “One thing that might be considered for MPs is whether in terms of any principles-based guidance there might be a statement that MPs are primarily accountable to the electorate and the democratic system and that should inform how they approach conflicts and outside interests, hospitality and gifts etc… That one would be an interesting one to consider.
“Equally, of the three principles which guide the code of conduct, integrity seems to be the most appropriate to apply to MPs.
“But also exercising their independent judgement as well in terms of what they’re considering in terms of debates and political issues etc… might be helpful.”
When it came to the principles set out in the judicial code of conduct, Dr Sorabji gave the example of the non-exploitation of titles.
“The application of the principles in terms of gifts makes it quite clear that judges can accept gifts, but only if they’re very de minimis and low value – a bottle of wine rather than three cases of Chateau Margaux.”
Dr Sorabji said MPs could have similar guidance “along those lines in terms of applying the principles, and obviously ensuring that everything you do doesn’t bring into disrepute Parliament, just as judges are required to act in ways that don’t bring into disrepute the judiciary”.
Dr Sorabji was co-chair of the Civil Justice Council working party on litigation funding, which published its final report last month. He is general editor of the White Book.
Leave a Comment