Nolan Principles

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Susan Murray, who will speak for up to 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray]

I have just finished my speech, actually.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With a five-minute time limit, I call Sam Rushworth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

I will give way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, but I will be starting Front-Bench speeches at 4.30 pm and we do have another Member who wants to speak.

[Dr Arthur]

Do any of my hon. Friend’s constituents think it is a complicated issue if people are earning hundreds of thousands of pounds outside this Chamber? Does he think whether or not that should be happening is complicated?

[Phil Brickell]

I do not think it is complicated; I think it is pretty simple, and the Government have said repeatedly that the focus should be on delivering for constituents.

In summary, will the Minister do what she can to ensure that the report is expedited? Across the standards landscape, it pains me to see progress moving at far too slow a pace. My understanding is that the Prime Minister has yet to meet the EIC, so my final ask is: might the Minister venture to ensure that such a meeting takes place as soon as possible?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

On a four-minute time limit, I call Adam Thompson.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I will be as brief as possible. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for bringing the debate forward—we are all very grateful.

Despite what the media might have us think sometimes, I think people in my constituency are not actually that interested in the to-ing and fro-ing of us here in Westminster. Instead, what they want to see is honesty and accountability in their politicians and their Government. They want some breathing space from the pressures of the cost of the living crisis, and they expect that those elected to serve them are focused on the issues that matter to them most. When I speak to people across Erewash, they rarely ask about the sparring that has happened that week in Prime Minister’s questions. What they actually want to ask me about is whether they can get a GP appointment, if their train will turn up on time, or how they will make ends meet at the end of the month.

People need to know that politics is working for them. When confidence in politics falls, so does our ability to tackle the challenges facing the country and improve people’s lives. That is why the Nolan principles matter. They are about restoring trust at a time when many people have lost faith that politics can deliver for them. Rebuilding that confidence requires those in public life to uphold the highest standards of honesty, integrity and accountability. The Nolan principles are not about party politics; they are the core of good public service, and they help to ensure that decisions are taken in the public interest. They set out the standards that British people have a right to expect from those who are elected to serve them.

In the era of social media, where misinformation can spread quickly and public confidence is easily eroded, standards of conduct are more important than ever. People hear a lot about politics, but they do not always see reasons to trust it. The rise of artificial intelligence of course has merit. However, it has created room for the rapid spread of disordered information and misinformation. With political deepfakes—often from accounts registered from abroad—seamlessly depicting Members of this House doing or saying things they have not done, it is unsurprising that people feel distrust towards politicians.

I remember the incident last year involving the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—I have notified him that I would be mentioning him today. A deepfake video was created in which the fake version of him announced his defection from the Conservative party to Reform, which, of course, the real hon. Member had not done. It was terrifying for all of us here, because of how close to reality the video was, despite it being totally fabricated. Fake news spreads six times faster than truthful content online, and 70% of people struggle to distinguish between real and fake news. Two thirds of Brits now see misinformation as the leading threat to our democracy, and with trust in politicians at an all-time low, that should concern us all. That is why it is essential that all politicians uphold the principles of openness, integrity and honesty. Where there is uncertainty in the information space, people should be able to look to public servants for clarity and not be met with falsehoods or ambiguity.

Every story of poor conduct makes it a little harder for people to believe that politics is working for them. Trust is hard to build, and easy to lose. Once it is lost, regaining it takes time. And it has been lost. Just four years ago, Liz Truss sent the currency crashing and interest rates soaring; six years ago, Boris Johnson broke his own lockdown rules to host parties in Downing Street; and this year, Reform UK has been investigated by the National Crime Agency for alleged dodgy dealings.

This morning on the Floor of the House I raised an incident with Derbyshire county council, which had placed engagement sanctions on our brilliant local democracy reporter, Eddie Bisknell. Although I understand that those sanctions are now lifted, I strongly agree with the Leader of the House’s comment that it sounded like they were running scared from basic scrutiny.

Public trust has been seriously undermined. It is up to us, as Members of Parliament and public servants, to adhere to the highest standard of professional and personal conduct. If we want the public to regain faith in politics and us, selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness and honesty are the life foundations by which we must abide. Public trust should never be taken for granted; it must be earned and maintained. That is why the Nolan principles remain as important today as they have ever been.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) for securing it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for his very powerful contribution earlier in the debate.

As hon. Members have set out, the Nolan principles, introduced in 1995, are the foundation of trust in public service and the standard that all public servants should adhere to. From Members of Parliament, councillors, police and crime commissioners and mayors to civil servants and all those working in our health, education, police and court services, our mandates come from, and our salaries are paid by, the British taxpayer. No matter our party or different beliefs, we should always work in the interests of the nation first. That is what the principles of integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, honestly, openness and leadership ensure.

The previous Prime Minister arrived in office promising to restore service and respect to politics. He had a plan for change. It turned out he might have meant pocket change—£12,000 for free clothing, £2,000 for designer sunglasses and £20,000 of luxury accommodation from Lord Alli, who slipped hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Labour party, then Starmer gave him a free pass to wander around Downing Street. Add in his freebies to the Taylor Swift concerts—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the rules of the House are very clear that the conduct of another sitting Member of either House cannot be brought into question unless on a substantive motion.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I apologise for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will continue, hopefully without catching your attention on such matters again.

It is worth saying that the former Prime Minister’s total expenses bill was more than any recent party leader and more than two-and-a-half times that of any MP in that period. That is certainly doing politics differently. If “passes for glasses” was not enough, the Government’s crony appointments got worse. The former Prime Minister disgracefully chose to appoint the twice-fired Peter Mandelson.