Committee on Standards in Public Life Annual Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life November 2002 – December 2003 Chair: Sir Nigel Wicks The Seven Principles of Public Life Selflessness Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends. Integrity Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties. Objectivity In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit. Accountability Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office. Openness Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands. Honesty Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest. Leadership Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example. The Committee on Standards in Public Life Back Row (l-r): Rita Donaghy OBE, Rabbi Dame Julie Neuberger DBE, Rt Hon Chris Smith MP, Sir Alistair Graham, Baroness Maddock Front Row (l-r): Dr Brian Woods-Scawen DL, Professor Hazel Genn CBE, Sir Nigel Wicks (Chair), Dame Patricia Hodgson DBE The Rt Hon Gillian Shephard DL MP was not present when this photograph was taken. 1 Annual Report 2003 CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE CHAIR, SIR NIGEL WICKS 4 COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INQUIRIES 5 Eighth Report on Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons Ninth Report on Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service Tenth Inquiry “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life” STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE DURING 2003 “A STANDARDS CHECK” 10 RESEARCH INTO PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE 20 APPENDICES 1 About the Committee 23 Terms of reference Method of working 2 Membership of the Committee 24 Members of the Committee Members whose term of appointment came to an end during 2003 Members taking up appointment from January 2004 Register of members’ interests Code of Practice 3 Communications 32 Listening and learning Briefings Events and speaking engagements International relations World Wide Web 2 The Committee on Standards in Public Life 4Financial Review 36 Budgetary information Payment performance Progress against objectives for 2002-03 Progress against objectives for 2003-04 5 Services to the Public 42 A standard for public enquiries A standard for telephone calls An information standard Putting things right What to do if you have a complaint 6Profile of the Secretariat 44 Current members Other assistance to the Committee 7 Publication Scheme 45 The scheme What is a publication scheme? What the scheme covers 8 Reports and Publications 49 Obtaining Committee publications Contacting the Committee 3 Annual Report 2003 FOREWORD by Sir Nigel Wicks Chair of the Committee 1.1 There is considerable evidence, set out in a number of reports, that trust in public office holders and public institutions has fallen over recent years. This is clearly a matter of concern to us all since public trust is essential if our liberal democracy is to work in a harmonious and efficient manner. The reasons for, and the extent of, the reported decline in trust are unclear: changes in society’s expectations, some rare but unfortunate events which influence public perceptions, perceived failures to deliver core public services, of “unfortunate events“ occur, to use the words of media sensationalism, all have been adduced as a recent parliamentary report, which would drive reasons. The Committee should be better able to those responsible to implement the substance of understand the reasons when the results of our the recommendations included in our Report. This Research into Public Attitudes to Standards in second approach would carry a cost: further Public Life are available later in 2004. erosion of trust in public office-holders. 1.2 Against this background, it is hardly surprising 1.5 This Annual Report includes an innovation. We that the last year has been an extremely busy one have set out in Chapter 3 a “Standards Check“ in for the Committee. During this period we were which we highlight some of the year’s more pleased to hear the House of Commons’ response significant incidents and events which touch on to the Committee’s Eighth Report on Standards of standards of conduct in public life. Conduct in the House of Commons. The House adopted most of the Committee’s 1.6 In 2004 the Committee will prepare its Tenth recommendations, either directly or through Report “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing alternative means for securing the objectives of Standards of Conduct in Public Life“ where we the recommendations. will examine the proportionality and impact of procedures introduced to implement various 1.3 The Committee remains disappointed, however, Committee recommendations in Local with the Government’s response to its Ninth Government, the National Health Service (NHS) Report, “Defining the Boundaries within the and Public Bodies. We believe that this is an Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the important exercise because if the burden of these permanent Civil Service”. While the Government procedures becomes disproportionate or ill accepted some recommendations, many of the adapted to the outcomes desired, it is unlikely that core recommendations have not yet been standards of propriety will be maintained. In short, accepted. The Committee notes, in Chapter 3 of the Committee’s intention in this Inquiry is to this report, that a number of general issues raised enhance the effectiveness of these arrangements. during Lord Hutton’s inquiry were presaged in the recommendations made in our Ninth Report 1.7 Finally I would like to thank all the members of published in April 2003. the Committee during my time as Chair who have provided unfailing support, advice and 1.4 The Committee believes that the Government’s time. My thanks also go to the Secretariat to the response to its Ninth Report represents a seriously Committee, past and present, and to all those missed opportunity to bring the necessary clarity who have contributed through written and oral about the proper boundaries within the executive; evidence to the work of the Committee during to ensure the right degree of security about their my time as Chair. maintenance; and through this, to enhance public trust in the processes of government. As I said at the launch of the Ninth Report, there are two ways to achieve those objectives. One approach is to adopt the recommendations set out in our Report. The other approach is to delay action until a series 4 Committee Reports and Inquiries COMMITTEE REPORTS AND INQUIRIES 1 November 2002 – 31 December 2003 2.1 Between November 2002 and December 2003 remained generally high. The system put in place the Committee met formally on 16 occasions, in after 1996, following the Committee’s First addition to convening public hearings and press Report6, had largely eradicated the problem of conferences. This period straddled key parts of paid advocacy7. Most alleged breaches since then three major reports and inquiries undertaken by had concerned a failure to declare or register the Committee: interests. Nevertheless, some serious cases of misconduct had arisen, which could lead to a • the publication of the Eighth Report on disproportionate loss of public confidence in the Standards of Conduct in the House of House of Commons as an institution. Commons1 (November 2002), and the response and implementation by the House 2.4 The Report set out the Committee’s belief that the to the recommendations made; current system for regulating standards of conduct had fallen short of delivering confidence • the analysis of evidence and publication of in certain respects. In particular, we were the Ninth Report on Defining the Boundaries concerned by the considerable lack of clarity and of the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers by the perception that some elements of the and the permanent Civil Service2 (April 2003) system might be overly sensitive to external and the Government’s response to the interests or pressures. A number of key changes recommendations made; and were proposed therefore to ensure that the system for regulating standards of conduct would • preparatory work on the Tenth Inquiry which be clear and impartial, and perceived to be so. led to the publication on 15 January 2004 of The main objectives of the Report’s 27 the Issues and Questions consultation paper recommendations were to: “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life”3. • strengthen the ability of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to operate independently; Eighth Report on Standards of • ensure that the Committee on Standards and Conduct in the House of Commons Privileges is seen to be impartial; • introduce further elements of external The Report scrutiny into the process; and • clarify the present system. 2.2 Following the publication of a consultation paper4 in February 2002 setting out the principal 2.5 In particular, the Committee recommended that: areas on which it intended to focus, and public hearings between May and September 2002, the • the Parliamentary Commissioner for Committee published its report on 21 November Standards should have a non-renewable fixed 20025.