Review of the House of Lords code of conduct: Recommendations

Approximate read time: 10 minutes

On 5 March 2025, the House of Lords will debate the following motion:

Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench) to move that the report from the select committee ‘Review of the code of conduct and the guide to the code of conduct’ (4th report, HL Paper 66) be agreed to.

Baroness Manningham-Buller is the chair of the House of Lords Conduct Committee.

1. What did the review consider?

The code of conduct for members of the House of Lords was adopted in 2009. Its purpose is “to provide guidance for members of the House of Lords on the standards of conduct expected of them in the discharge of their parliamentary duties”.^[1] The code is also intended to “provide the openness and accountability necessary to reinforce public confidence in the way in which members of the House of Lords perform their parliamentary duties”.^[2]

Under the code, House of Lords commissioners for standards are responsible for investigating allegations that the code of conduct has been breached by a member. The code states they are unable to act where matters fall outside of the scope of the code, such as policy matters or a member’s views or opinions.

The guide to the code of conduct, agreed in 2010, explains the code’s application and process by which investigations are carried out. Both the code and the guide have been amended several times. The thirteenth, and most recent, edition was published on 18 September 2023 following the agreement by the House of previous amendments recommended by the House of Lords Conduct Committee.^[3]

In March 2024, the House of Lords Conduct Committee launched a review of both the code and the guide.^[4] In its call for evidence, the committee noted this would be the first comprehensive review of the code since it was first adopted. It said the review would take as its starting point that the current level of regulation of members’ conduct was correct.^[5] However, it said it would consider matters including how best to shorten and clarify the code.^[6] It also said it would consider how the code might be improved to ensure it met its objective of reinforcing public confidence in the House of Lords. The committee was reappointed on 22 July 2024 following the general election.

During the review, the committee took evidence from various members of the Lords including the leaders of the political parties in the Lords, the chairs of party associations and the convenor of the Crossbench peers. It also took evidence from the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Doug Chalmers, and from campaign organisations such as Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK. Baroness Manningham-Buller also tabled a debate in the House of Lords taken on 8 October 2024.^[7] During her opening remarks, Baroness Manningham-Buller invited members to give their views and opinions on the code. Further information on the establishment of the review and background to this debate is provided in the House of Lords Library briefing ‘Review of the House of Lords code of conduct’ (12 September 2024).

The committee published its final report on 23 January 2025.^[8] If the House of Lords agrees the code, the guide and the other documents included in the review’s final report, they would come into force on 5 April 2025 and apply to all new investigations launched after that date.

2. What did the committee recommend?

The House of Lords Conduct Committee’s report included a redrafted version of both the code and the guide to the code.^[9] The committee said these revised texts had been shortened and clarified, with the proposed code being 30% shorter and the guide 45% shorter than their respective previous versions.^[10] The committee recommended several substantive changes to both the code and the guide, including:

• Removal of the requirement to register and declare non-financial interests. The committee concluded that this requirement was unnecessary and that the process of maintaining this register was complex and “disproportionately burdensome”.^[11]
• Removal of the automatic presumption that someone sentenced to terms of imprisonment overseas had breached the code. Responding to concerns it had received from members, the committee recommended it should be able to assess whether an offence a member had been convicted of outside the UK is a criminal offence in the UK before recommending a sanction. The committee also recommended considering whether the judicial system in the country concerned is “such that the trial can be considered fair”.^[12]
• Adding an explicit reference to the fact that members being investigated can seek support. The committee concluded the balance in the current code between maintaining confidentiality and seeking support was subject to some uncertainty. It recommended amending the code of conduct to clarify that both the complainant and the member being investigated may seek support from close colleagues and advisers, including legal advisers.
• Replacing appendix B of the guide concerning bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Appendix B currently provides detailed definitions and examples of these behaviours. Paragraphs 21–8 of the new guide to the code of conduct provide shorter definitions.^[13] The revised code states the commissioners for standards would draw on policies adopted by the Parliament-wide independent complaints and grievance scheme when deciding what constitutes bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.^[14]

A detailed list of the changes contained in the revised versions of the code and the guide is set out on pages 11–16 of the report.

The committee’s report also includes revisions to the enforcement procedure for breaches of the code.^[15] The committee noted there had been several cases where the commissioners had investigated breaches of the code that were found to be minor and inadvertent. Under the current rules, these minor cases still require a full investigation and the publication of a report. The committee recommended establishing two types of enforcement procedure: one for general breaches and another for breaches involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. General breaches would be subject to a new ‘minor cases procedure’. As part of this procedure, the details of the case would not be made public once they were resolved. The committee also recommended the commissioners should be able to escalate cases if they no longer consider the circumstances to be minor. These investigations would then follow the same procedure as breaches involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct, including the publication of a full report.

In addition, the committee considered the rules concerning debating its reports in the chamber. Currently, reports from the committee and motions on sanctions are decided by the House without debate. This is set out in the standing orders.^[16] This rule is intended to protect complainants from public criticism during these debates in the interests of natural justice. The committee said it believed this rule remained appropriate for cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. However, it concluded there was a “less compelling” case for precluding debates in instances involving other forms of breach.^[17] It noted the House of Lords Procedure and Privileges Committee was responsible for deciding whether or not to amend the standing orders. However, if it decided to amend them, the committee recommended one option would be to only prohibit debates on reports arising from cases involving bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.

The committee’s report also included an updated text of the code of conduct for House of Lords member’s staff.^[18] The committee did not identify any substantive changes to this code, other than those that reflected changes in the code of conduct for members.

3. What else did the committee consider?

The committee considered two further proposals for changes to the code, which it decided not to adopt.

First, the committee considered whether to change the system used for conducting investigations. This system is currently ‘inquisitorial’ rather than ‘adversarial’. Witnesses are examined by the commissioners for standards and there is no cross-examination of witnesses by the person being investigated. The committee noted some members had argued that not allowing cross-examination of witnesses did not conform to the principle of natural justice. The committee said the current system gave the person being complained against “fair opportunity” to respond to the complaint.^[19] It also said the system ensured complaints were judged impartially by someone who had heard both sides of the argument. The committee concluded the introduction of an adversarial system and allowing cross-examination of witnesses would increase the time and expense of investigations. It also said the introduction of cross-examination would deter the victims of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct from submitting legitimate complaints. Therefore, it recommended maintaining the current process for conducting investigations.

Second, the committee considered whether causing significant “reputational damage” to the House should constitute a breach of the code.^[20] The committee concluded it would not be possible to introduce such a rule without expanding the remit of the code beyond a member’s parliamentary duties, risking intrusion into their non-parliamentary lives, including their private lives. Instead, the committee argued the current rule that members should “act always on their personal honour” was sufficient to ensure they behaved in a way that would not damage the House’s reputation.^[21] It also said the ‘personal honour’ rule had been applied in the past in such a way as to ensure investigations of breaches of the code were limited to members’ parliamentary activities only.

Notwithstanding its conclusion on reputational damage, the committee recommended the code should be changed to clarify whether members’ use of public-facing social media fell within the remit of the code. It noted there was some confusion about whether social media activity should be counted as parliamentary or non-parliamentary. It recommended that public-facing social media should be deemed parliamentary in certain circumstances and the code should be amended to confirm this. It noted that posts on social media would be protected by the general rule that policy matters and a member’s views or opinions were not within the remit of the commissioners for standards. However, it said:

Nonetheless, as a self-regulating chamber the House of Lords has the right to determine that egregiously offensive statements made by its members on public-facing social media may in certain circumstances fall within the scope of the code and be subject to the accountability which comes with that.^[22]

4. Read more

• House of Lords Library, ‘Review of the House of Lords code of conduct’, 12 September 2024
• House of Lords Library, ‘Parliamentary democracy and standards in public life in 2023’, 21 December 2023

---

Cover image by Young Shih on Unsplash.