Nolan Principles

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing forward this debate. It is strange to become a Member of Parliament for the first time when trust in politicians is at an all-time low. The feeling of antipathy towards MPs from much of the public bears no relation at all to most of the people I have met in this place. Colleagues across the House work extremely hard for their constituents in surgeries, casework, meetings and debates, and in the long quiet hours that nobody sees.

As with most things in life, however, there are always a few who ruin it for everyone else, those people who do not care quite so much for the niceties or traditions. I believe that we must ensure that we have the rules and regulations in place to hold those people to account and uphold the values of public service if we are to restore faith and trust in politics. I heard the view of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) that we need a system that supports Members—although I am not sure that we entirely agree on the need for a flexible system to get around the conflicts of interest that some of us face.

If politics is not clean, if politicians are not honest and accountable, and if people cannot trust those whom they send to represent them, then frankly what is the point?

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

In my professional experience as a vet, if I broke the rules and lied about it, I would get struck off. There does not seem to be an equivalent standard for politicians. Surely politicians should be held to account the same as anyone in a regulated profession, whether that is medics, teachers or anyone else who must be registered and maintain a certain standard of public behaviour.

[Caroline Voaden]

My hon. Friend makes the good point that most other professions are regulated to a much higher degree than we are in this place. In 1995, Lord Nolan set out seven principles for public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They are not complicated. They are what any member of the public would expect from us, and they are written into the ministerial code, the MPs code of conduct and the civil service code. However, time and again in recent years those principles have been brushed aside.

Take partygate, which has been mentioned by many Members: while families were separated from dying relatives and people stood alone at funerals—my family included, that very week—those writing the rules were holding parties in Downing Street. That was a disgraceful failure of selflessness, and above all, a failure of leadership.

Not long ago, the leader of Reform UK received a gift of £5 million from a wealthy donor but did not declare it. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), not in his place, claimed that it was for his security and that no rules were broken—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Lady will be very aware of the rules of this House and of this debate. It is not in order to criticise the conduct of another hon. Member, except on a substantive motion.

[Caroline Voaden]

I believed that I was merely mentioning something that we all know had happened, but whatever the outcome—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am sure the hon. Lady understands full well the parameters of this debate and the rules of this House.

[Caroline Voaden]

Forgive me.

Whatever the outcome of that case, there will be many people outside this place who have questions about £5 million passing quietly to a politician. Integrity means not placing ourselves under obligation to those who might seek to influence us. The public are entitled to ask what would be expected in return for a sum of money on that scale, and whether it is merely a gift.

Let us take the situation of the former ambassador to the United States of America—a man with a long history of controversy.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady is still alluding to the case you told her she could not discuss. I urge you to call her to order. She said she would obey the rules.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure that the hon. Lady can remember my previous two rulings on this. I am sure that she understands that it is imperative that we all obey the rules in this House.

[Caroline Voaden]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

It is little wonder that trust is where it is. People have rightly lost faith in a system that is meant to work for them. The issue is that our system depends almost entirely on voluntary compliance. It assumes that people who break the rules will admit it, resign and make things right, but anyone who has followed politics in recent years knows that that does not always happen. Rules built on good faith give no protection against those who act in bad faith. People are not asking for perfection; they are asking for accountability. They want to know that when someone in public life crosses a line, there will be consequences.

That is why the Liberal Democrats have a clear plan to restore standards in public life. We would put the ministerial code into law. We have called for this repeatedly, and we will keep calling for it. A code that is only guidance can be ignored, but a code that is law must be followed.

We would make the independent adviser on ministerial standards truly independent. I applaud the Labour Government under Keir Starmer for giving the adviser the power to start their own investigations, but that does not go far enough. The Prime Minister can still raise concerns that stop an investigation in its tracks, the Prime Minister still decides what follows from its findings, and the Prime Minister alone still chooses who holds this post. That is still, in part, marking one’s own homework. We would go further, with no prime ministerial power to halt an investigation, the right for the adviser to decide whether there has been a breach and to publish their findings, and an appointment confirmed by Parliament, not made by the Prime Minister alone.

We would also reform the rules on outside work. Voters send us here to work for them, not to use Parliament as a launchpad for a career in media consultancy or the boardroom. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) about Members not having time when doing this job properly to be earning a fortune from media gigs or speaking arrangements. That reform should be led by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, not by MPs deciding what they believe is good enough for themselves.

Then there is the elephant in the room: big money in politics. Where there are huge donations, there will always be suspicion of influence. The simplest way to remove the temptation and doubt is to remove the money. We would therefore cap individual donations whatever country a donor lives in, cap party spending all year round, and put donations, spending and political advertising on a real-time, searchable public database so that people can see exactly who is paying for politics. I support the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) about lobbying and the transparency needed around it. If we take out the money, we take away the temptation and we give the public confidence that their voice counts for more than someone else’s bank balance.

These are only some of the changes we would make. Trust in politics can be rebuilt, but not through apologies or promises. It will be rebuilt when the rules are enforceable, when they apply to everyone equally, and when breaking them has consequences. That is what the public expects, and it is what this House should deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.