Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
in any other area of life, you would have the right of appeal.
That is all I am arguing here. I am not judging his behaviour.
|
Both the standards commissioner and the standards committee have to agree that an MPs conduct warrants formal action, it's not jut the standards commissioner by themselves
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...dTextAnchor058
Quote:
|
19.Where the Commissioner has concluded that there has been a breach of the rules, and the Committee agrees in whole or in part, those concerned face a range of penalties. In a very few cases, the reputational damage of an adverse report will be deemed sufficient, together with any action required to remedy the breach. In more serious cases the Committee will make recommendations for further action. The Committee may recommend:
|
At both stages of that investigation, the MP in question is given the opportunity to respond.
---------- Post added at 08:32 ---------- Previous post was at 08:25 ----------
This sudden need for an extra appeal step may have value, but you can't ditch an existing process before deciding what the new one is.
---------- Post added at 08:42 ---------- Previous post was at 08:32 ----------
And if you are going to add new appeals processes, you should also make sure that any final decision is properly enforced and can't be ignored
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ed-review-says
Quote:
The prime minister should no longer be the only person who can give permission for ethics investigations into his own conduct and that of ministers, according to a wide-ranging review by the independent committee on standards in public life.
The committee, chaired by former spy chief Jonathan Evans, found that the rules around the conduct of ministers need strengthening, arguing they currently fall “below the bar” for effective standards regulation.
|