ISLAMABAD: Compliance with ethical standards in government is not just an issue in developing countries such as Pakistan but in the developed world too, particularly, the United Kingdom, which is known as the "mother of democracy".
Three days ago, a conference was held in the United Kingdom, which was organised by the Institute for Government (IfG), a leading think tank working to make government more effective, in London, on "Ethical standards in government".
Lord Evans, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), opened the conference with a fusillade of reprimands to the government for its behaviour, saying that "it cannot be right to propose an overhaul of the entire regulatory system in order to postpone or prevent sanctions in a very serious case of paid lobbying by an MP." The Seven Principles of Public Life, that all governments have espoused for over 25 years, require that ministers and MPs should show leadership in upholding ethical standards in public life, he added.
Selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty, and leadership - these principles articulate the public's expectations of the values, all public officeholders should maintain.
Lord Evans argued, in a democratic system, parliament will always need to make the final decision on the consequences of serious misbehaviour by its members, and the prime minister will need to do the same for the members of his or her government. There can be no external, fully independent arbiter of standards who is completely apolitical. All roads in judging behaviour in public life must lead back to politics, and ultimately to the voters who pick MPs.
The system for upholding standards can and should be improved - not for the benefit of any one individual or party but because it underpins the democratic system of the country as a whole. Lord Evans said, "the political system in this country does not belong to one party, or even to one government. It is a common good that we have all inherited from our forebears and that we all have a responsibility to preserve."
On the role of the regulators, the participants' emphasised that independent regulator needed greater independence from the government.
Peter Riddell, former public appointments commissioner, argued in the conference that these roles "should all be appointed through the process for significant public appointments...and, most importantly, the assessment panel for each should have a majority of independent members."The speaker opined that those in public office must be more transparent: Tougher rules on transparency give people an incentive to abide by the rules.
Chris Bryant MP, chair of the Commons Committee on Standards, argued that the transparency requirements on ministers are much more lenient than on the backbench MPs, saying: "Two people might go to a Wimbledon final - cost of a ticket £3,000 or something - the shadow secretary of state for culture has to declare it [in their capacity as an MP], but the secretary of state for culture doesn't have to declare it, or only declares it in the ministerial code, which is published nine months to a year later. I just think that, that's nonsense."
The speakers felt that there is no reason why the perks of being a minister should not be declared as quickly as those of being an MP.
Lord Evans argued that ministers should declare all their government meetings on a monthly basis, rather than quarterly as at present. "We recently found that departments often struggle to meet their existing targets, so more onerous reporting requirements would probably be an administrative struggle - but the government needs to accept that there are now higher expectations of transparency about what ministers do."
It was discussed that there is needs to be greater transparency in how standards are actually upheld. As well as giving the independent adviser the ability to publish his or her own investigations, ministers should have to publicly justify any public appointments where the candidate was judged "unappointable" by the appointment panel, as Peter Riddell and the CSPL have argued.
The speakers said the prime minister needs to apply those standards rather than let ministers off the hook when it is politically expedient to do so. While the independent adviser can investigate, it will always be the prime minister who is the final arbiter of the ministerial code - he needs to take that responsibility seriously, and should explain to the parliament the decisions he makes on each alleged breach. It is ultimately the prime minister who must take the lead on defining and maintaining standards in government.
The conference had four sessions. The first session was chaired by Bronwen Maddox, director of the Institute for Government.
After the keynote address, Lord Evans answered the questions put by the chair.
He said independent standards and procedures do not have credibility unless they are independent of those are to being scrutinised, so increasing the independence of the system seem to me critical both to effective operation and credibility.
Lord Evans also said that there is a critical need for independence in the regulation of ethical standards in both the government and the Parliament. He told that the Committee members recognised that a number of social and political trends were contributing to an increasing pressure on ethical standards - even before the coronavirus pandemic hit.
Ethical standards have always been used as a party's political weapon. But in times of greater consensus, political leaders may have been more willing to step above the fray and do the right thing on ethical standards, even occasionally at some political cost.
He said there is an increasing tendency among the politicians to see those on the other side not as opponents but as enemies, and there has been a huge increase in abuse and intimidation directed at those in public roles, both elected and appointed.
Following the uncovering of a shocking level of bullying, harassment, including sexual harassment, in the Parliament, contributors felt that our set of ethical standards should include a greater focus on behaviour and the way in which public figures undertake their interpersonal relationships. We believe that respect is implicit in the idea of leadership - acting in a way that sets a positive example for others.
Ethical standards are the shared values that underpin the legitimacy of democratic governance. In our political system, an electoral mandate does not confer unlimited and untrammelled power on those in office. Our system of checks and balances means power must be exercised for the public good and not for private gain. When ethical standards drop, public consent and confidence will weaken, undermining the bonds of trust that keep our politics and governance functioning.
To believe ethical standards are redundant is to risk a long-term decline in the very foundations of trust that sustain British democratic life.
The regulators need greater independence and protection from government interference. They should be empowered to speak out when necessary. He said the power should rest with those who are elected and not those who are appointed.
In the second session, chaired by Dr Hannah White, deputy director at the Institute for Government, the panel discussed whether various codes of conduct and constitutional guides - including the ministerial code - set standards for those in public life. It noted that events throughout 2021 have raised questions about whether the rules, and the various bodies that enforce them, are robust enough to uphold expected standards of behaviour.
The participants talked about how can the various standards watchdogs hold ministers, officials and others to account for their behaviour in public life? Are current sanctions sufficient? Should these bodies have greater legal powers and more independence from the government?
Chris Bryant MP, chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges: said undoubtedly the system could improve. He said the rules are important and making them clearer is more important.
Lord Pickles, chair of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointment (ACOBA) said that there is a need for ensuring that ministers and top civil servants should not be allowed to join the lobby firms, there should be decent gap of five years. The members of the parliament are responsible and accountable to their constituents.
Dame Shirley Pearce, DBE, member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life had the view that the parliament must continue to command respect. You cannot legislate against the standards. He also said that the key thing is independent professional regulations. He emphasised on creating a single ethical watchdog, single regulator that is very attractive idea but difficult to do in practice.
Responding to the question by the chair that should there be an income gap in MPs, Chris said; "I don't think that amount is an issue. The MPs job is to work for their constituency. You should be able to justify to your constituents."
Lord Pickles said there is a need to be transparent. The members of the parliament are responsible and accountable to their electorates.
Dam Shirley, the MPs can ensure to the public how they are earning and how they are getting money.
The third session was that the UK government has faced criticism over its approach to standards, but it is not the only government around the world - or even within the UK - grappling with these questions.
With other governments taking different approaches to setting and upholding rules for standards in public life, this panel discussion will explore what the UK can learn about upholding standards from governments across the world, what role parliaments play in this process and whether standards need a stronger legislative basis.
The event was chaired by Tim Durrant, associate director at the Institute for Government and joined by Mario Dion, Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner of the Canadian Parliament, Duncan Hames, Director of Policy Transparency International UK, Dr Melissa McCullough, Commissioner for Standards at the Northern Ireland assembly.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2021