"I am not and never have been a saint": Alberto Costa
7 min read
New Standards Committee chair Alberto Costa tells Sophie Church why punishments for MPs breaking minor rules should be less severe
“If you committed a minor failing in your place of work that didn’t have any impact – there was no corruption – would you be expected to stand up and publicly apologise?”
New chair of the Standards Committee Alberto Costa is asking The House a question that may have crossed the minds of many MPs: does the punishment for small infringements of parliamentary rules really fit the crime?
For Costa, publicly shaming MPs for committing minor offences is contributing to the lack of trust we see in politicians today – a drum he has been banging for the four years he has sat on the Standards Committee. Now its chair, he is determined to use his power to find a “different way of operating”.
It might be a little bit too easy to complain that an MP is bullied, or somebody else is bullied
“One of the things I’m not very comfortable with is when an MP commits an administrative error – a really minor error where they fail to disclose a modest interest – and they breach the 28-day limit. It’s very easy to do that,” he says.
“I don’t think in the usual workplace, for minor breaches of the terms of conditions of contract, people are held to such a high level where they have to make a public apology. I think that’s just a bit too severe,” he says. “My only interest is: is it helping the public have trust in us or not? And I don’t think it does.”
Costa points to the example of former Scottish National Party MP Margaret Ferrier, who was suspended from the Commons after breaching Covid lockdown rules – a punishment he found “a little bit too severe”.
“The question that my colleagues and I had to ask was: is this an example of somebody that is corrupt, or is it an example of somebody that has done something that, there go I but for the grace of God, with a bit of compassion you might understand why she’d done what she did?”
With a Labour government “committed to modernising processes”, Costa says he now hopes there is an opportunity to refine the standards process so that only offences concerning “matters which are not minor” are made public.
However, he also suggests bullying – which has prompted investigations, then resignations, from high-profile MPs – is a form of misconduct that could be dealt with privately.
“I would have thought that if you were to complain at your place of work, they would try and mediate in private. They would say ‘look what’s happened here?’, and maybe get a private apology from the person.”
He adds: “I think the concern here is that, actually, it might be a little bit too easy to complain that an MP is bullied, or somebody else is bullied.”
Does he sympathise with MPs being held to a higher standard?
“Well, I am one of them, so I sympathise with myself,” Costa laughs. “I think that sometimes we are held to a higher standard, and generally that’s right, because we make the law for our country, and accordingly we should be held to a higher standard.
“But we shouldn’t be held to such a high standard that you are requiring saints to stand forward for election. I am not and never have been a saint. I am a fallible human being like anyone else. To err is human.”
The MP goes on to explain: “People say, ‘We want more normal people that represent us, that look like us, that act like us.’ Well, when you put a mirror up to society, you’re going to get all sorts of people. So, don’t be surprised when you get all sorts of people then that come into the House.”
Costa equates the role of an MP to that of other professions. For instance, he says the misapplication of rules won’t happen among MPs “more often than any other professional walk of life”. On potentially bringing in sniffer dogs to the estate to check for drugs, he asks: “Is it something we’d want to see in all workplaces?”
The committee chair is open, however, to the idea of MPs taking an oath on the Nolan principles governing standards in public life, alongside the Oath of Allegiance.
“That’s an opportunity where there could be a short document confirming that you will uphold the Seven Principles of Public Life, as well as the code of conduct,” he says.
“It’s just a way of maybe helping MPs understand that this isn’t just something you’re given in your first week – a little talk and you can forget about it. It must be at the forefront of your mind when you’re making decisions that impact on the public.”
Understanding the standards landscape in Parliament can be difficult, and Costa thoroughly explains the role of each body during our interview. With suggestions the role of standards commissioner Daniel Greenberg encroaches on the work of the Standards Committee, does Costa feel the relationship needs a reset?
“Generally, the parliamentary commissioner for standards and his team have got my full support,” he says.
Generally?
“There’s always scope for improvement,” he says. “Following the Owen Paterson debacle, I had long argued that the parliamentary commissioner for standards role – not the individual, the role – that standing orders set out for the commissioner were potentially questionable in terms of perception of natural justice.”
The Paterson inquiry prompted changes: the standards commissioner no longer adjudicates on more serious matters, nor appears before the committee to make a case, nor remains in the room while the committee deliberates. “That’s what I mean by ‘there is always room for enhancement’,” he says.
Costa says he is open to improving recent rule changes around All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs), which MPs – as well as the charity sector – have been struggling to navigate.
Each APPG must now have exactly four officers, no more and no fewer, and two of these must be from the House of Commons. MPs can now serve as officers on a maximum of six APPGs, and APPGs must have at least 20 members. No APPG secretariat is allowed to be provided or funded by foreign governments.
MPs have criticised the complicated nature of the rules, with one telling The House they represent “a sledgehammer to crack a nut”. Does Costa think they are working as intended?
“We’ve really only had a few months of them beginning to bed down,” he says. “I think we need a bit more time. I am hearing some views from colleagues; some are finding it a little bit restrictive, and I’m certainly open to listening to colleagues and seeing if they can be further enhanced.”
According to the latest register, updated on 20 November, there are currently 273 APPGs. Before the general election, 553 APPGs were in operation. There were six APPGs specifically dedicated to cancer before the election, and now there are none. One cancer charity that decided not to establish an APPG again cited the difficulty of securing the newly required number of MPs as a reason.
Does Costa believe the rule changes have had unintended consequences?
“If it’s having the unintended consequence of unduly restricting the ability of charities to encourage MPs to take up issues like cancers, I would certainly encourage leaders to write to me and I will raise that with the Committee on Standards as an issue to be looked at.”
Elected as South Leicestershire’s Conservative MP in 2015, Costa says he consciously did not climb the “greasy pole” in his early days as an MP.
“I’m one of those MPs that honoured my pledge to my constituency association,” he says. “I said I would move my family from London to the constituency if I was selected as a candidate, and that’s what I did.”
Now having a Standards Committee chair “who understands” that being an elected Member of Parliament is a profession like any other, Costa says we can “keep enhancing and strengthening standards, rather than disparaging about the state of affairs of our political system”.
PoliticsHome Newsletters
Get the inside track on what MPs and Peers are talking about. Sign up to The House's morning email for the latest insight and reaction from Parliamentarians, policy-makers and organisations.
