Monthly Archives: June 2022

Back in 1994, Lord Nolan was tasked by the then Prime Minister, John Major, to lead a Committee to develop a shared set of values for all those in public life. The Committee’s work culminated in the publication of the Seven Principles of Public Life. Since then, social media, COVID-19 and intense public scrutiny and debate over the conduct of politicians have placed renewed pressure on public standards. If the Seven Principles matter to our democracy, how can we ensure our existing standards framework is functioning as well as it should, particularly for rural communities? Jessica Sellick investigates. 

………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What are the seven principles of public life? The seven principles outline the ethical standards those working in the public sector are expected to adhere to. This includes all those who are elected or appointed to public office (nationally and locally), as well as people working in the Civil Service, Local Government, the Police, courts and probation services, non-departmental bodies, and in health, education, social and care services. The principles also apply to people in other sectors delivering public services. The seven principles are: 

1.Selflessness

Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest.

2 Integrity

Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work. They should not act or take decisions in order to gain financial or other material benefits for themselves, their family, or their friends. They must declare and resolve any interests and relationships.

3 Objectivity

Holders of public office must act and take decisions impartially, fairly and on merit, using the best evidence and without discrimination or bias.

4 Accountability

Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.

5 Openness

Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.

6 Honesty

Holders of public office should be truthful.

7 Leadership

Holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.

How were they developed? These principles were first set out by Lord Nolan in 1995 in the first report of The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life. Back in October 1994, the Prime Minister asked the Committee to inquire into ‘growing public concern about standards in public life’. The Committee received some 2,000 pieces of correspondence and took evidence from 100 witnesses. In its report the Committee described how: 

“It was equally clear from a considerable body of this evidence that much of the public anxiety about standards in public life are based upon perceptions and beliefs which are not supported by the facts. Taking the evidence as a whole, we believe that the great majority of men and women in British public life are honest and hard working, and observe high ethical standards. There is, and always will be, a minority who fall short…It is equally difficult to say whether there has been any decline in overall standards in public life. The public’s concerns about the conduct of people in public life seem to have increased in recent years, but part of the explanation may be that the public’s expectations of the behaviour of those in office are now higher” (page 19).   

In this first report Lord Nolan made it clear that the principles alone would not be enough to ensure high standards of conduct in the public sector, and that they would need to be supported by three broad mechanisms: (a) codes of conduct, (b) independent scrutiny, and (c) education.  

How have the seven principles been implemented by central Government? Between September 2020 and November 2021 the Committee on Standards in Public Life carried out a ‘Standards Matter 2’ review. The purpose of the review was to see how well ethical standards were being upheld in public life in the UK; to look at the strength of the UK’s arrangements for regulating and promoting ethical standards; and to identify examples of best practice in the promotion and regulation of ethical standards. 

In advance of its final report the Committee published its findings. Acknowledging that it was unusual for the Committee to publish these early, they noted how the issues of standards in public life had become the subject of notable interest: 

“our system of standards regulation is currently under sustained public scrutiny, and the upholding and enforcement of the seven principles of public life is the subject of a number of parliamentary and government inquiries. The Committee is releasing these findings now to contribute to that debate in a timely manner” (page 2). 

Therein the Committee identified four areas of standards regulation requiring significant reform: 

1. The Ministerial Code and the Independent Advisor on Ministers’ Interests: the Committee recommended the code be issued by the Prime Minister; that there should be a range of graduated sanctions for breaches; and how an Independent Advisor should be able to initiate investigations with their findings published in a timely manner. 
2. The Business Appointment Rules and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments: the Committee called for the rules to be expanded so that an individual cannot take up business appointments for two years where they have had significant and direct responsibility for policy, regulation or the awarding of contracts; that there should be a longer ban on lobbying [not exceeding five years]; and that business appointment rules should be made enforceable through employment contracts for civil servants and special advisors and through legal arrangements for ministers.
3. Transparency around lobbying: the Committee called on the Cabinet Office to collate departmental transparency releases and publish them in one centrally managed database – publishing them in a timely manner on a monthly basis; and to update guidance on informal lobbying to ensure this is disclosed in departmental releases. 
4. Regulation of Public Appointments: the Committee called for the Commissioner to have sufficient powers to uphold the integrity of the appointment process; for the appointment of Non-Executive Directors of Government departments to be regulated; and that departments should publish a list of unregulated appointments.    

The Committee published its final report in November 2021. This revealed how polling and focus group research carried out for the review found the public viewed MPs and ministers to have poor ethical standards. In contrast, the ethical standards of those delivering public services (e.g. doctors, teachers, judges) were found to be high. While witnesses cited the longevity, timelessness and integration of the seven principles into British public life, the Committee amended the description of leadership (principle 7) to have greater emphasis on treating others with respect: 

7. Leadership [new description]: holders of public office should exhibit these principles in their own behaviour and treat others with respect. They should actively promote and robustly support the principles and challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.  

The Committee also highlighted the introduction and development of a number of codes of conduct and scrutiny mechanisms over the last 25-years: 

“…we were told that too often there are inconsistencies in the application of codes, that the quality of advice varies, and that insufficient priority is given to ethical issues…the government should take a more thorough and professional approach to ethics rules and develop a compliance function across government…It is clear to the Committee that the degree of independence in the regulation of the Ministerial Code, public appointments, business appointments, and appointments to the House of Lords falls below what is necessary to ensure effective regulation and maintain public credibility” (page 8). 

The Committee recommended that existing ethics regulators be consolidated into a single ethics commission. 

Ministerial Code 

A Ministerial Code has been in existence since the Second World War. Initially, this was a confidential internal circular, before being published as ‘Questions of Procedure for Ministers’ in 1992 and as the Ministerial Code since 1997 and thereafter. The latest version was issued in August 2019 in response to Brexit to emphasise the collective responsibility and security of Government discussions. In sum, the code contains procedural guidance and should be read alongside the Code of Conduct for MPs or Members of the Lords. All of these documents are brought together in a Cabinet Manual. 

In 2006 the role of Independent Advisor on Ministers’ Interests was created. Appointed by the Prime Minister, they advise on matters relating to the Ministerial Code and are required to observe the Seven Principles. There have been discussions and debates over whether the advisor lacks powers to be truly independent as they are dependent on the Prime Minister to refer individuals; and/or on Prime Ministers not accepting and acting upon the Independent Advisor’s advice. The Institute for Government, for example, has suggested there are fundamental flaws in the Code and the role of the Advisor and that both require permanent constitutional status. 

In April 2021, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Lord Geidt as Independent Advisor. Alongside this, the Government confirmed that it is the Prime Minister’s responsibility to set standards of behaviour for Members of the executive and to account for the actions of Government. 

On 25 May 2022 civil servant Sue Gray published the findings of her investigation into alleged gatherings on Government premises during COVID-19 restrictions. Gray found the way in which these gatherings developed and took place in many instances were not in-line with COVID guidance at the time. “Even allowing for the extraordinary pressures officials and advisors were under, the factual findings of this report illustrate some attitudes and behaviours inconsistent with that guidance. It is also clear, from the outcome of policy investigation, that a large number of individuals (83) who attended these events breached COVID regulations and therefore COVID guidance” (page 38).    

On 27 May 2022, the Government published a policy paper confirming its position that the application of the Ministerial Code is a matter for the Executive and wholly separate from legislature; however revised Terms of Reference for the Independent Advisor were published, placing a duty on all Ministers to provide them with the information reasonably necessary for them to discharge their role. 

Business Appointments 

The Government’s Business Appointment Rules regulate the employment of ministers, civil servants and special advisors after they leave public office. These rules enable Government Departments to apply delays, conditions or restrictions on private sector employment, and to advise when a proposed appointment is unsuitable. The rules apply for one or two-years after leaving office and include a two-year ban on lobbying. The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) considers applications under the rules about new jobs for former ministers, senior civil servants and other Crown servants. The ACOBA is not a regulator or watchdog, and once again the issue of business appointments and lobbying has gained recent prominence. 

The Office of the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists was set up following the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, in order to create and administer the statutory Register of Consultant Lobbyists. While welcomed by many for enhancing transparency, for others, the awarding of contracts during COVID-19 has promoted calls to reform lobbying. 

Public Appointments 

The Commissioner for Public Appointments has a number of functions set out in the Public Appointments Order in Council 2019. This includes ensuring that ministerial appointments are made in accordance with the governance code and principles of public appointments. In comparison to other commissioners and bodies, the public appointments commissioner is an independent regulator of appointments rather than an active participant in the appointments process itself. This has led some commentators to query if the commissioner has sufficient powers to be involved in the means by which a list of appointable candidates is produced, and from which ministers make their choice.  

How have the seven principles been implemented by Local Authorities? In January 2019, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a report and recommendations on local government ethical standards. This involved carrying out a health check of the standards framework in place for Local Authorities in England which was established through the Localism Act 2011. The report provided assurance that the arrangements in place are promoting and maintaining the standards expected by the public and reinforced the view that the majority of local councillors maintain the highest ethical standards. However, the Committee did recommend that some improvements were required, in particular, the need for maximum independence in local complaints processes and the need for greater sanctions (where appropriate) in the rare cases of significant or repeated breaches of the code of conduct. 

Of the 213 Local Authorities that responded to the Committee’s survey: 

• 75.6% said they had prohibitions on bullying and harassment in their code of conduct or were putting them into place.
• 51.2% said they had provisions in their code of conduct requiring councillors to comply with formal standards investigation.  
• 98.6% said their code is readily accessible or were making changes to make the code accessible. 
• 86.4% said they update their gifts and hospitality register regularly and have made it readily accessible to the public. 
• 98.6% said they consulted an Independent Person as to whether to undertake a formal investigation on an allegation.
• 98.6% said they had clear guidance on their websites informing members of the public how to make a complaint under the code of conduct.
• 93.9% said that their senior officers had arrangements for meeting with political group leaders/whips to discuss standards issues.

The Committee recommended that the Local Government Association (LGA) develop a non-mandatory model code of conduct. 

In March 2022 the Government responded to the Committee’s report: 

“Vibrant local democracies flourish where the reputation of the local authority is held in high regard, where councillors’ decision-making is transparent, valued and trusted by the communities they serve, and where people are willing and confident to put themselves forward as potential candidates…The Government is committed to working with local authorities and their respective organisations to ensure that local government is supported in reinforcing its reputation for ethical local standards…The Government agrees with the Committee’s conclusion that there have been benefits from local authorities being responsible for ethical standards, including the flexibility and discretion to resolve standards issues informally” (pages 1-2).     

In its reply to the Government’s response, the LGA outlined its development of a Model Councillor Code of Conduct and accompanying guidance: 

“We agree that there is still more to do, but that a locally-led standards and conduct system, supported by guidance, training and good practice is the best approach”.   

How do the principles apply to private and voluntary sector organisations delivering public services? In 2014 and again in 2018 the Committee on Standards in Public Life examined the application of the seven principles to all those delivering public services including third-party providers from the private and voluntary sectors. Research commissioned by the Committee found the public wanted common ethical standards to apply regardless of provider type. Yet they found public sector commissioners were rarely stating the ethical standards they expected providers to conform to and nor were such standards embedded in commissioning and procurement processes. In 2018 the Committee recommended that the Crown Commercial Service, working with Civil Service Learning and the Commissioning Academy, disseminate best practice on ethical standards. 

Private and voluntary sector organisations have their own ethical frameworks that underpin how they operate. For example, charitable and voluntary organisations may use the NCVO code of conduct model and/or larger charities the Charity Commission’s Governance Code. Housing providers may use the National Housing Federation’s  Code of Governance. Many of these frameworks consist of a set of principles and are intended to guide continuous improvement towards the highest standards. They are not, however, a legal or regulatory requirement. 

The collapse of Kids Company placed renewed focus on the responsibility of those sitting on boards [tasked with protecting the interests of the charity and its beneficiaries] and the Charity Commission’s ability to prevent, detect, tackle abuse and mismanagement. This case opened up debates around recognising the voluntary role that trustees on many boards perform [and needing to give them leeway in making decisions] and the unconventional relationships and lack of proper funding processes in place between some Government departments and charities. In the case of Kids Company, a House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report into the collapse described how “the approach of successive Governments and Ministers towards Kids Company has proved to be an improper way to conduct Government business or handle public money”.  

In 2018 Oxfam was accused of covering up claims staff sexually exploited victims of the 2010 Haiti earthquake. A Statement from Penny Mordaunt, then International Development Secretary, shortly after the allegations came to light announced a series of actions to tackle sexual exploitation in the aid sector. She described how “Right across the charitable sector, organisations need to show leadership, examine their systems, ensure they have clear whistleblowing policies and deal with historical allegations with confidence and trust…. I remain very clear: we will not work with any organisation that does not live up to the high standards on safeguarding and protection that we require”. In June 2019, the Charity Commission published the findings of its inquiry into Oxfam GB. The review team found: “some aspects of Oxfam GB’s safeguarding casework were not being carried out in compliance with procedures and/or recognised practice standards; that its policies and recognised practice standards were not being properly or consistently implemented by staff; and that the charity was not able to provide necessary assurance to its staff and the public that safeguarding risks were being properly managed. The Commission considers this to be mismanagement in the administration of the charity” (page 15). 

In 2021, ITV News uncovered the damp, mouldy conditions being endured by some people and families living in social housing owned by Local Authorities and Housing Associations. A subsequent report from the Housing Ombudsman called on housing providers to make changes in culture, behaviour and approach; from being reactive to proactive, and from inferring blame [on residents] to taking responsibility [as the landlord].  

Some of these cases have generated calls for a new governance model for large complex charities. Under one model proposed, charities would have a unitary board, comprised of paid trustees and the senior executive directors, alongside an “assurance” board from the charity’s membership who would be volunteers.

When the seven principles were first set out by Lord Nolan in 1995 the majority of public services were delivered (in-house) by public servants. Since then, a greater proportion of public spending on services has been outsourced to charities, social enterprises and companies. While many of these organisations already recognise the importance of ethical standards in winning and maintaining their public services work, how services are delivered is as important as who, when and what is being delivered.    

What about the application of ethical principles in rural communities? While ethical standards are widely discussed, less attention has been paid to their application specifically in rural places. There is, however, a growing body of interest in health, with some commentators in North America suggesting the types of ethical issues faced by health care professionals in rural places is different than their urban counterparts – grounded in the inequitable allocation of funding and resources and by the late presentation of medical conditions. 

While every rural community is different, residents often share cultural values such as self-reliance, self-care and a strong work ethic and this influences when and from whom they seek health care and how they make decisions about treatments. Indeed, some observers emphasise how mental health conditions, substance misuse disorders, sexual health and some infectious diseases pose particular challenges regarding (late) patient presentation.  

Academics have described the interweaving of professional and personal relationships that clinicians in rural areas may face, with both residents/patients and clinicians lacking anonymity. It can be common for health care professionals living and working in rural areas to interact with patients outside of their professional work – and while this can enhance professional-patient relationships it can also complicate patient care. On the one hand, the lack of other health care professionals and facilities present in rural areas means clinicians are often performing multiple roles, further making role separation and professional boundaries difficult. On the other hand, it has been suggested that being “too distant” can impact on patient trust. 

More recently, academics have considered the ways in which rural communities posed unique ethical questions in the context of COVID-19. Drawing on studies from Canada and the United States, researchers at the University of Texas described how clinicals often turned to spouses, peers or the Medicine Wheel for ethical guidance: “Not only do rural systems/hospitals lack or underutilize their ethics committees, but the lack of timely and appropriate ethical guidance or expertise is compounded during a pandemic as smaller systems are at greater risk of using all of their resources faster, without the financial or political means of larger institutions”. 

Taken as a collective, this work is opening up broader discussions around whether dedicated ethical resources for rural places need to be developed. William Nelson, for example, has called for the drafting of guidelines for dealing with common, recurring ethical conflicts and new models for “doing ethics” in small rural health facilities. 

Back in the UK, for England, the Committee on Standards in Public Life published a series of blogs discussing the relevance of the principles to the COVID-19 crisis. The Committee’s work highlighted the need to reflect on how to balance the principles thoughtfully and of talking things through in the light of the principles can help clarity responsibilities and options: “Hard choices in crises need not break communities. The seven principles of public life provide us with a set of tools for us to negotiate the challenges we face as we make difficult decisions in these testing times. If we use them deliberatively to steer our way, they can play an essential part in binding us together as a society”. 

In rural communities, do the seven principles need to be steered differently? For example, for ‘integrity’ does its application require more consideration about influence? How can some of the principles be applied to support policy and decision making that affects rural communities (e.g., ‘objectivity’ – using the best evidence)? 

Where next?The Committee on Standards in Public Life continues to advise the Prime Minister on ethical standards across public life. It conducts broad inquiries, collects evidence to assess institutions, policies and practices and makes recommendations to the Prime Minister where appropriate. The Committee also promotes the seven principles. However, the Committee has no remit to comment on or investigate individual cases, and nor can it inquire into matters relating to devolved legislatures and governments except with their agreement. Similarly, the Committee sits alongside a number of ethics and standards-related bodies, commissioners, committees, rules and regulators.  

The seven principles require those working in the public sector and those delivering public services to show leadership in upholding ethical standards in public life. Indeed, they are the shared values that underpin democratic life and remain as relevant today as when they were first developed more than 25-years ago. 

Sue Gray concluded her report by writing, “Many will be dismayed that behaviour of this kind took place on this scale at the heart of Government. The public have a right to expect the very highest standards of behaviour in such places and clearly what happened fell well short of this”. 

Do we now need a more resilient standards system? And if so, who, where and what are the opportunities for reform? 

…………………………………………………………………………………………………

Jessica is a researcher/project manager at Rose Regeneration and a senior research fellow at The National Centre for Rural Health and Care (NCRHC). She is currently supporting a CRF funded project; helping public sector bodies to measure their social value; and evaluating employability schemes and a veteran programmes. Jessica also sits on the board of a Housing Association that supports older people and a charity supporting Cambridgeshire’s rural communities. 

She can be contacted by email jessica.sellick@roseregeneration.co.uk. 

Website: http://roseregeneration.co.uk/https://www.ncrhc.org/ 

Blog: http://ruralwords.co.uk/ 

Twitter: @RoseRegen