The requirements for license-the standards to be attained

Table of Contents

Introduction & Summary A Teaser Background Advocating Democracy Democracy’s vulnerabilities Overall defensive strategy The scale of the problem The legal status of politicians? The case for licensing politicians The case against licensing politicians The requirements for license-a statuary body to manage the process The requirements for license-the process The application and length of validity Eligibility to holding a licence Licences: non-renewal, suspensions and cancellations The requirements for license-the standards to be attained The requirements for license-the criteria Awarding or refusing the licence Political legal liability Educational program The Singapore experience Promotion and dissemination References Appendix 1 SWOT Analysis of UK democracy post 2024 UK general election Appendix 2. Governance and misconduct arrangements in certain professions Appendix 3: Table of evidence required for each criterion Appendix 4: Process for converting Criteria satisfied to Licence granting

To attain the overall standard, there will be a number of criteria each of which need to be passed, or at least none to be failed. The standard of each criterion needs to be uncompromisingly high. It is about giving the public confidence that our leaders are always making decisions on our behalf and that they are for the common good. It is to ensure that our elected representatives are not basing their decisions or views on self-interest or other nefarious reasons.

For example, it is well known that a ruler who is under pressure at home will take the opportunity to unify the country by going to war against a common enemy. Another ruler frustrated by their own law courts will advocate or appoint to curtail the rulings of their judges. They will come up with plausible arguments why they should act as they do but the reality is the hidden motivation to retain power. 

The licenses are to ensure that when ministers make decisions and MPs vote they do so in the best interests of all of us without any intruding self-interest. Most ministers are members of parliament and therefore the Level 1 certificates also ensure that the pool of members from which the ministers are drawn has individuals who are all of appropriate character to lead us. 

Some evidence is to be requested and submitted by the applicant. Some evidence will be obtained by prolonged interview. Some evidence may be requested from relevant third parties. Some evidence will be a declaration in the form of a disclosure which if it comes to light that any pertinent material has been withheld, it may result in the suspension or withdrawal of the certificate. 

When assessing a character criterion of suitable or unsuitable, the ‘legal’ standard to be used is not ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ as in a criminal case. Nor is it ‘on the balance of probability’ as in a civil matter. Rather, the tests that should be applied are:

  • either ‘is there prima facia evidence that if substantiated would deem the prospective MP to be unsuitable?’
  • or ‘are there three independent sources of hearsay evidence raising a concern that if found to be true would deem the applicant unsuitable.?

The three independent sources of hearsay test is to protect the would-be MP from a single act of defamation of character. For example, one expression of concern stating that the license applicant is a bully at work, may raise the issue, but it may also be the result of a fallout between the applicant and his employee. Three independent sources, and now it is more likely to reflect the applicant than all three of the complainants. While a single verbal concern or accusation may by itself be insufficient to meet the criteria for not awarding a licence, where merited this should not necessarily mean that an investigation elsewhere by the appropriate authority will not take place.

If the license is approved the applicant’s details will be entered onto the public register of approved licenses. If the license is declined the applicant is confidentially informed. Being declined a license, while it may be disappointing, unless it reveals potential criminal activity, by itself is not a legal offense, in the same way that failing a driving test is not illegal, but driving without a licence is.

If the prospective candidate, or indeed the sitting MP, who has had a licence turned down still wants to seek a license for the next parliamentary term, the onus would be on them to demonstrate that there are good alternative reasons to explain the evidence presented. In other words, they would have to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the raised concerns are false. 

To be clear, by itself the failure to obtain a licence has the only repercussion, that the person cannot stand for parliament. The revoking of a licence does not imply any illegality undertaken, nor a criminal record. For example, a level 2 licence may be revoked if a minister undertakes activity that could reasonably give rise to suspicion that their personal activity places them as a security risk, even when there is no evidence that secrets have been passed on. The latter would be a matter for criminal charges to be placed, if the evidence warranted it, but this would be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service, not the RPPL.

Last updated on