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. term appointment, and should be given direct powers to call for witnesses and papers; 2.3 In the Eighth Report the Committee concluded • no one party should have an overall majority that standards in the House of Commons on the Committee on Standards and

1 Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons, November 2002, Cm 5663. 2 Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: Defining the Boundaries of the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service, April 2003, Cm 5775. 3 Issues and Questions paper “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life” published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life on 15 January 2004 and available from www.public-standards.gov.uk. 4 Issues and Questions paper published 25 February 2002, available on the Committee’s website www.public-standards.gov.uk. 5 see footnote 1. 6 First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, May 1995, Cm 2850-I. 7 Payment to a Member of Parliament (or his or her family) to advocate or initiate a cause or matter in Parliament on behalf of an outside body or individual, or urge any other member to do so.

5 Annual Report 2003

Privileges, and no Parliamentary Private Ninth Report on Defining the Secretaries should serve as members; • an Investigatory Panel with an independent Boundaries within the Executive: Chair should hear evidence to help the Ministers, Special Advisers and the Committee decide on the most serious and permanent Civil Service contested cases; • the Committee should publish its reasons in The Report full for any decision; and • the Code of Conduct for MPs should be 2.9 In this Inquiry the Committee sought to clarify the reviewed during each parliamentary cycle, boundaries within the executive following a time and external bodies should be consulted as of considerable change within government and in part of this review process. the environment in which government operates. It focused on the need to maintain the boundaries The Response between Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service and on the effectiveness 2.6 The Commons Select Committee on Standards of the mechanisms in place to maintain standards. and Privileges responded8 (11 February 2003), by endorsing the majority of the Committee’s 2.10 Following the publication of a consultation recommendations and proposed alternative paper12 in March 2002 setting out the principal arrangements for the others. The House of areas on which it intended to focus, and public Commons Commission also responded9 hearings between June and September 2002, the (11 February 2003) to those recommendations Committee published its report on 8 April 200313. which concerned its role in appointing the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. 2.11 This was not new territory for the Committee. The Committee’s First Report14 considered such issues 2.7 In response the Chair of this Committee in respect of Ministers and Civil Servants and the commented10: Sixth Report15 extended this examination to Special Advisers. Since then the Ministerial Code “I welcome the constructive response of the of Conduct had been revised16 and a new Code of Select Committee on Standards and Privileges Conduct for Special Advisers published17. The to our Eighth Report, on Standards of Conduct Committee wanted to consider whether these in the House of Commons. I am very pleased went far enough in the light of a series of highly to see that the majority of my Committee’s publicised cases involving Ministers, Special recommendations have been endorsed by the Advisers and Civil Servants which highlighted Committee on Standards and Privileges and that some uncertainties that remained concerning their the Select Committee has proposed alternative respective roles and functions. arrangements for the others. The report of the Select Committee, if accepted by the House, 2.12 The Ninth Report contained 34 would deliver a valuable strengthening of recommendations, including: present arrangements.” For Special Advisers: 2.8 The House of Commons debated and approved • identify Special Advisers who are separate the Report of the Standards and Privileges from the Civil Service, abolishing their current Committee on 20 and 26 June 200311, accepting status as temporary civil servants; in total about 90% of the recommendations in • set out what a Special Adviser must not do; the Eighth Report. The Committee welcomes • require an annual statement to be made to this response. Parliament setting out information on Special

8 HC 403. 11 February 2003. 9 HC 422. 11 February 2003. 10 Press Notice 137, 11 February 2003, www.public-standards.gov.uk. 11 Hansard 20 and 26 June 2003, Column 1239. 12 Issues and Questions paper published 4 March 2002, www.public-standards.gov.uk. 13 see footnote 2. 14 see footnote 6. 15 Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Pubic Life: Reinforcing Standards, January 2000 Cm 4557-I. 16 Ministerial Code – A Code of Conduct and Guidance on Procedures for Ministers. Cabinet Office July 2001. 17 Code of Conduct for Special Advisers. Cabinet Office July 2001.

6 Committee Reports and Inquiries

Advisers and unpaid advisers, including their • reaffirmed its acceptance of the case in number, cost and responsibilities; principle for establishing the Civil Service in • provide for Parliament to set an upper limit on Statute and undertook to publish a draft Bill the total number of Special Advisers; and for consultation; • make clear the personal responsibility of each • agreed that the appointment of the First Civil Minister (including the Prime Minister) for his Service Commissioner should be made after or her Special Advisers. consultation with opposition leaders; and • agreed that the Ministerial Code should be For No 10: amended to make clear that all Ministers are • require Parliamentary agreement for the two personally accountable to the Prime Minister Special Adviser posts in the Prime Minister’s and to Parliament for the management and Office with executive powers, and limit those discipline of their Special Advisers. powers to work carried out in the Prime Minister’s Office. 2.15 However, in a number of areas the Government did not accept the Committee’s core For Ministers: recommendations, namely: • introduce an element of independent scrutiny into any investigation of an alleged breach of • the Adviser on Ministerial Interests would be the Ministerial Code; and treated only as “an additional” source of • create an Adviser on Ministerial Interests to professional advice “as required”, and would advise on conflicts of interest and publish the have no mandatory involvement where facts of ministerial interests. conflicts of interests arise; • a rejection of the proposal that Special For the Civil Service: Advisers should be defined as a category of • give the Civil Service Commissioners power government servant distinct from the Civil to investigate on their own initiative18; and Service and that Parliament should set a limit • maintain the overriding principle of selection on the number of Special Advisers; and on merit after fair and open competition, • a rejection of the proposal that the existence including the present practice whereby one of two posts in the Prime Minister’s Office candidate, chosen on merit, is recommended with executive powers should be a matter for to the Minister for open competitions Parliamentary debate and agreement. involving outside candidates. 2.16 The Committee was also concerned that some of For the Government Information and the Government’s responses diverged Communication Service (GICS): significantly from the approach they • a requirement that appointment panels are recommended in the Ninth Report. In particular confident of the impartiality of individuals the Government: appointed to senior press posts. • appeared to be ready to contemplate giving 2.13 The Committee went on to recommend (as it had Ministers the selection decision in the in its Sixth Report) statutory legislation (A Civil recruitment of Civil Servants by open Service Act) to implement the key competition. The risk here is that the adoption recommendations, so as to ensure that the of such a process – which is being discussed procedures for sustaining the fundamental with the Civil Service Commissioners – could principles identified in the report were subject to lead to an actual or perceived politicisation of parliamentary scrutiny and decision. the Civil Service; and • proposed an amendment of the Code of The Response Conduct for Special Advisers which would increase the powers of Special Advisers over 2.14 The Government responded19 to the Ninth Report Civil Servants. The proposed amendment said on 11 September 2003. The Committee that Special Advisers could “convey to welcomed the acceptance of some of the officials Ministers’ views, instructions and recommendations20, in particular the work priorities, including on issues of Government: presentation”. This would enhance the

18 Further details are also set out in the Sir Nigel Wicks’ letter to the First Civil Service Commissioner on 4 June 2003 and in his letter to Sir Andrew Turnbull of 5 January 2004, both available from www.public-standards.gov.uk. 19 The Government’s Response to the Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, September 2003, Cm 5964. 20 Press Notice 140, 11 September 2003, www.public-standards.gov.uk

7 Annual Report 2003

position of Special Advisers and could may, on behalf of their Ministers: (i) convey to confuse accountability within the officials Ministers’ views, instructions and work Department. The amendment also said that priorities, including on issues of presentation;”. Special Advisers can “hold meetings with Sir Andrew confirmed that after reflecting on the officials to discuss the advice being put to wording, the Prime Minister had now decided to Ministers”. Such a procedure could well delete “instructions” from the amendment to the jeopardise the provision by Civil Servants of Code. In his reply21 on 5 January 2004, Sir Nigel objective, independent and impartial advice made clear that the Committee welcomed this to Ministers. further reflection and revision by the Government as a constructive development. However the 2.17 In summary, therefore, the Committee doubted reply also made clear the Committee’s continuing whether the measures described in the concerns about other aspects of the Government’s response would, taken together, Government’s response. The Committee hopes bring the necessary clarity about the proper that the Government will also reflect further on boundaries within the Executive between those other recommendations in the Ninth Ministers, Special Advisers and the Permanent Report that it felt unable to accept at the time of Civil Service and the right degree of security its response. about their maintenance. The Committee believed that the Government’s response Joint seminar represented a seriously missed opportunity to enhance public trust in the processes of 2.19 Following the interest government. generated by the Committee’s Ninth Report 2.18 Following the Government’s response and the and the Government’s Committee’s statement in reply, Sir Andrew response to it, and to the Turnbull wrote to Sir Nigel Wicks on 20 related reports from the November 2003, about the proposed amendment Civil Service to the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers, in Commissioners22 and the particular the statement that “Special Advisers Public Administration Dr Tony Wright MP

Delegates at a joint conference on “Reforming the Civil Service while safeguarding its values” in October 2003.

21 The Chair’s letter to Sir Andrew Turnbull of 5 January 2004. www.public-standards.gov.uk. 22 Annual Report of the Civil Service Commissioners April 2002-March 2003.

8 Committee Reports and Inquiries

Select Committee23, a joint Public Administration Select Committee: conference was held on Draft Civil Service Bill “Reforming the Civil Service while 2.21 Following the joint seminar, the Public safeguarding its values” Administration Select Committee (PASC) held a on 29 October 2003. The series of evidence sessions aimed at helping conference was organised produce a draft Civil Service Bill. PASC asked a jointly by the Committee range of witnesses detailed questions about what on Standards in Public they thought should be included in the Bill, Life, the Public including seeking the views of those who are Administration Select Baroness Prashar sceptical about whether there should be Committee, the Civil legislation at all. The Chair gave evidence on Service Commissioners, the FDA24 and the behalf of the Committee on 18 November 2003 Constitution Unit of University College London. and supplemented this with written evidence The seminar was chaired by Dr Tony Wright MP. submitted on 24 November26. This evidence drew Speakers included: upon the recommendations of the Ninth Report and provided more detail on the scope and form • Sir Andrew Turnbull KCB CVO, Head of the of a Civil Service Act. On 5 January 2004, PASC Home Civil Service; published its draft Bill27 which reflects many of • Baroness Prashar, First Civil Service the recommendations of the Ninth Report and is Commissioner; a development that is warmly welcomed by the • Sir Nigel Wicks, Chair of the Committee on Committee. Both this Committee and PASC now Standards in Public Life; await publication of the Government’s draft Bill. • Mel Cappe, High Commissioner for Canada • David Clarke, Former Special Adviser to the Tenth Inquiry, Getting the Balance Rt. Hon. Robin Cook MP; and • Andrew Tyrie MP, Former Special Adviser to Right: Implementing Standards of the Rt. Hon Lord Lawson. Conduct in Public Life

2.20 The seminar generated a 2.22 From the summer of 2003 onwards the lively debate about some Committee began considering the subject of its of the issues covered in Tenth Inquiry. It decided to investigate the the Ninth Report. Such a proportionality and impact of procedures “post-report" event introduced to implement various Committee represented a new recommendations in Local Government, the NHS approach by the and Public Bodies. This resulted in the Issues and Committee to promote Questions consultation paper “Getting the dissemination and Balance Right: Implementing Standards of discussion of its Conduct in Public Life“28 being published on recommendations and, Sir Andrew Turnbull 15 January with written responses sought by given its success, may 16 April 2004. Once all written evidence has well be repeated for future reports. Copies of the been received the Committee will hold public speeches given can be found on the Public hearings and the report is expected to be Administration Select Committee website 25. published at the end of the year.

23 8th Report “These Unfortunate Events – Lessons of Recent Events at the former DLTR”, July 2002, HC 303. 24 The union representing senior managers and professionals in public service. 25 http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_committee.cfm 26 Oral and written evidence available from the PASC website above 27 Public Administration Committee First Report 2003-4. A Draft Civil Service Bill: Completing the Reform. HC 128-I. 28 see footnote 3.

9 Annual Report 2003

STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE DURING 2003 “A STANDARDS CHECK“

3.1 When the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John inquiry is conducted, these are regarded by the Major, established the Committee on Standards Committee as a useful check on current in Public Life in October 1994, the Committee standards and the effectiveness, or otherwise, of was given wide terms of reference: the arrangements in place to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life. “To examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including 3.4 The Committee’s consideration of these specific arrangements relating to financial and standards issues take places within an overall commercial activities, and make appreciation of the level of trust in public recommendations as to any changes in present institutions, an issue which is touched on in the arrangements which might be required to Foreword to this Annual Report. The available ensure the highest standards of propriety in evidence32 suggests that trust in public institutions public life.” 29 has fallen over recent years. During the period covered by this report the Committee has sought 3.2 The following month Mr Major said of the to make its own contribution to rebuilding that Committee: trust through its Eighth33 and Ninth34 Reports on improving the standards’ frameworks in “It is to act as a running authority of reference – Parliament and Central Government. In the almost you might say, an ethical workshop called coming year, the Committee’s Tenth Inquiry35 into in to do running repairs.“30 the proportionality and impact of standards frameworks introduced as a result of its previous This aspect of the Committee’s work was work, and its national research36 into people’s reaffirmed in 2000 as part of the Cabinet Office’s attitudes to standards in public life, will, it is Quinquennial Review of the Committee, which hoped, make a further substantial contribution. concluded that there was a: Both the Audit Commission in its report “Trust in Public Institutions“37 and the Prime Minister’s “…continuing need to monitor the ethical Strategy Unit Discussion Document38 have environment and to respond to issues of concern, identified “learning from mistakes“ as an which may arise.“31 important means for rebuilding this trust.

3.3 To fulfil this role and in addition to its formal 3.5 The issues considered by the Committee come inquiries, reports and research into public from a wide range of sources, including attitudes, the Committee devotes time throughout correspondence received, debates in Parliament, the year to discussing current issues and and issues raised by the media. Not all of these concerns relating to standards in public life. issues are about “current concerns“ with These considerations may, and sometimes do, standards in public life. The Committee is equally result in a full-scale inquiry. Even where no interested to see and consider issues that

29 Hansard 25 October 1994, col 758. 30 Speech at the Lord Mayor’s Banquet, 14 November 1994. 31 Report of the Quinquennial Review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cabinet Office 2000. 32 For example, Audit Commission/MORI: Trust in Public Institutions, available from www.mori.com/sri/pdf/omnibus3.pdf. Also YouGov poll for the Daily Telegraph, Feb/Mar 2003. 33 see footnote 1. 34 see footnote 2. 35 see footnote 3. 36 Research into Public Attitudes to Standards in Public Life, information available at www.public-standards.gov.uk. 37 see footnote 32. 38 Strategic Audit: Strategy Document p.105. Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, December 2003.

10 Standards in Public Life During 2003 “A Standards Check“

demonstrate that arrangements already in place 3.7 The Committee intends to repeat this “standards are working to ensure the highest standards of check“ in future annual reports to demonstrate propriety in public life. how it is meeting the remit given in its terms of reference “to examine current concerns about 3.6 In this section a selection of issues from the last standards of conduct of all holders of public year provide a broad illustration of the practical office…” and as part of its role in meeting “a operation of some of the arrangements for continuing need to monitor the ethical ensuring the highest standards of propriety in environment”. public life. This “standards check“ for 2003 is not, by definition, an exhaustive analysis.

“Standards Check“ by area of public life39

Ministers, Civil Servants and Standards Issue Special Advisers Role of Permanent Secretaries in Standards Issue investigating alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code Lord Hutton’s Report Source 3.8 The Government’s decisions relating to the 3.9 The Secretary to the Cabinet, Sir Andrew conflict in Iraq, including the publication by the Turnbull’s letter to the Rt Hon Mr David Davis Government of two dossiers of intelligence MP and briefings by the Prime Minister’s Official assessments of the threat posed by Iraq, provoked Spokesperson43 on the subject of the Ministerial a very great deal of debate during 2003. Code and the Prime Minister’s purchase of two Important issues were raised and some of the residential properties. events were the subject of the inquiry by Lord Hutton who was asked, “urgently to conduct an The Committee’s Interest investigation into the circumstances surrounding 3.10 The Committee’s interest concerns the role of the the death of Dr Kelly“40. The Committee notes that Permanent Secretaries (in this case the Cabinet a number of the issues that were raised during Secretary) in advising Ministers on compliance Lord Hutton’s inquiry were presaged, in a general with the Ministerial Code44, as it relates to way, in the recommendations made in our Ninth Ministers’ private interests, and, in particular, the Report published in April 200341, including: resulting perception that they have a role in investigating alleged breaches. • clarity, and parliamentary approval through a Civil Service Act, of the appropriate 3.11 This case brought into sharp relief the boundaries between Ministers, Special consideration given to this general issue by the Advisers and Civil Servants; Committee as part of its Ninth Inquiry45. The • a clear statement of what Special Advisers Committee came to the view that the role of cannot do set out in primary legislation; and advising on potential conflicts of interest • the need for powers to be given to the Civil inevitably drew Permanent Secretaries into a Service Commissioners to investigate, on their review of that advice whenever an allegation is own initiative, concerns raised about possible made and therefore put them in the position of breaches of the Civil Service Code. carrying out an investigation.

The Committee notes too, with interest, that the 3.12 The Committee, in its report concluded that the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) consequences of this role could be damaging to will be examining any implications of Lord the relationship between Permanent Secretaries Hutton’s report42 as part of its current inquiry into and their Ministers (in this case the Cabinet the role of inquiries in government. Secretary and the Prime Minister) and could

39 As set out in the Committee’s original terms of reference, see footnote 29. 40 Statement By The Right Honourable Lord Hutton (Issued through The Department For Constitutional Affairs’ Press Office) 21 July 2003. 41 see footnote 2. 42 Report of the Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly C.M.G. by Lord Hutton. HC 247, 28 January 2004. 43 Sir Andrew Turnbull’s letter to the Rt Hon Mr David Davis MP released to the media on 11 December 2002. Briefings given by the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesperson on 9, 10, 11 and 13 December 2002 – available from www.number-10.gov.uk. 44 see footnote 16. 45 see 2. Paragraphs 5.13-5.22 p.24. 11 Annual Report 2003

undermine public confidence that alleged Standards Issue breaches of the Code were subject to an independent investigation. The Committee Objectivity in the awarding of contracts by therefore recommended that “The Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries should have public office-holders no responsibility for giving advice to Ministers on conflicts of interest under the Ministerial Code.“ 46 Source In order for this necessary advisory role to be 3.14 The award of a contract to supply smallpox properly fulfilled in the future the Committee also vaccine to the Department of Health in April recommended that an independent office-holder 2002 had raised concerns in the media that the be appointed as an Adviser on Ministerial contract award was linked to donations to the Interests. Labour party made by the Chief Executive of the successful company. A National Audit Office 49 47 (NAO) Report published in April 2003 found no 3.13 In its response to the Committee’s Ninth Report, the Government in effect rejected the link between the donations to the Labour Party recommendation to remove responsibility from and the award of the contract by the Department the Cabinet Secretary and Permanent Secretaries of Health. Recommendations were made, arguing that, through their knowledge of the however, to improve the openness of the work of their Departments, they are best placed procurement process, even when (as in this case) to offer such advice to Ministers. The issues of national security were concerned. Government did, however, accept the case for appointing an independent adviser but only as an The Committee’s Interest “additional source of professional advice as 3.15 The principle of Objectivity in the awarding of required“ and without any mandatory public contracts, i.e. a choice based on merit, is requirement for the independent adviser to be fundamental to the highest standards in public consulted. The Committee, as it made clear in its life. This case exemplifies the importance of statement48 on the Government’s response, internal systems for assuring the objective letting disagrees with the Government’s view that it of contracts, and the necessity of these being should be left to the discretion of Ministers and supported by independent scrutiny, in this case their Permanent Secretaries to decide whether to carried out by the NAO. Suggestions that political involve the Adviser on Ministerial Interests. affiliation or support could influence the award of Treating the Adviser solely as “an additional“ such a critical contract are extremely damaging source of professional advice “as required“ to the public’s trust of government. The Committee ignores the value, in terms of public perception wastherefore reassured by the NAO’s conclusions and clarity, in the mandatory involvement of this and welcomed their recommendations for proposed independent element. Such a improving the Department’s procurement procedure, in the Committee’s view, would not procedures. The Committee is however detract from the ability of Permanent Secretaries disappointed to note that the NAO report to pass their knowledge of the work of achieved far less prominence in the media than Departments to the Adviser. the original suggestions of impropriety.

46 see footnote 2. R2 p.25. 47 see footnote 19. p.2. 48 see footnote 21. 49 Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Procurement of Vaccines by the Department of Health. HC 625 2002-2003 9 April .

12 Standards in Public Life During 2003 “A Standards Check“

Standards Issue gifts and services by their respective Ministers.56 Following discussions between the Cabinet Openness by Government Departments in Office (responsible for the Ministerial Code) and Lord Chancellor’s Department (responsible for respect of disclosing information on the Information Code and now the Department Ministerial gifts and potential conflicts of for Constitutional Affairs) over a period of 15 interest under the Ministerial Code of months the information was still not forthcoming and a complaint was referred to the Conduct Parliamentary Ombudsman on 22 July 2002. It was not until 8 August 2002 that central Source guidance was issued to government departments 3.16 Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by the Lord Chancellor’s Department to the effect Annual Report 2002-2003 (5th Report – Session that it was not necessary to disclose the 2002-2003)50 and Access To Official Information information and that Exemption 12 of the (6th Report – Session 2002-2003)51. Information Code (relating to the privacy of an individual) should be cited as the reason. The The Committee’s Interest subsequent investigation by the Ombudsman is 3.17 Openness is one of the Seven Principles of described in detail in her report, in particular the Public Life. “Holders of Public Office should be delays encountered by the Lord Chancellor’s as open as possible about all the decisions and Department in attempting to obtain central actions that they take. They should give reasons guidance from the Cabinet Office on this matter. for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly 3.21 The Ombudsman found that the exemption of demands.“52 the Information Code cited by both Departments cannot be held to apply to any of the information 3.18 The Freedom of Information Act 200053 provides sought, principally because the information for the first time a statutory framework designed related to gifts made to Ministers in their official to meet this principle for all public bodies. capacity, not in their personal capacity (it is not However, the main provisions in that Act do not therefore personal information as defined by the come into force until January 2005. In the exemption). The Ombudsman therefore upheld meantime, the Code of Practice on Access to the complaint and recommended the information Government Information54 regulates the provision be disclosed. While the Cabinet Office has since of information by government departments. published a list of Ministerial gifts received with Investigations into complaints of breaches of this a value of over £140 since July 200157, it has not code are conducted, under section 10(4) of the disclosed the other information relating to this Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, by the complaint and has refused to amend the central Parliamentary Ombudsman. guidance to departments accordingly.

3.19 In her report on investigations completed 3.22 The second case concerns a request made on between November 2002 and June 2003, the 19 February 2001 to 17 government departments Parliamentary Ombudsman highlighted two cases to provide information relating to occasions on of particular interest to this Committee. Both which their Ministers had reported to their cases involved information covered by respective Permanent Secretaries potential requirements in the Ministerial Code of conflicts of interest under the Ministerial Code of Conduct55 (registers of gifts and advice on Conduct. Following a refusal of 15 of the 17 conflicts of interest), designed to ensure propriety departments to provide the information, citing in Ministers’ conduct. Exemption 2 (relating to internal discussion and advice) and Exemption 12 (relating to the privacy 3.20 In the first case, a request was made to 17 of the individual) a complaint was made to the Government departments on 6 April 2001 Ombudsman on 1 August 2002. The requesting information about the acceptance of Ombudsman issued a statement on 22 August

50 HC 847 (Session 2002-2003). 51 HC 951 (Session 2002-2003). 52 see footnote 6 p.14. 53 Freedom of Information Act 2000 c36. 54 Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, second edition 1997. 55 see footnote 16. 56 Paragraph 127 of the Ministerial Code requires the receipt of such gifts to be reported to the Permanent Secretary. 57 see footnote 52.

13 Annual Report 2003

setting out the complaint and asking to see first case the Government felt unable to agree all the papers relevant to the complaint by with the recommendation from the Ombudsman 13 September 2002. that the information be released (despite making some of it available58), and the precedent that 3.23 Following discussions between the Ombudsman such information had in the past been provided and the Cabinet Office and Lord Chancellor’s by the Government59. This could be compared Department, the Ombudsman received, on unfavourably with the provisions in the Local 25 June 2003, a notice from the Cabinet Office, Government Act 2000, which require Local under section 11(3) of the Parliamentary Authorities to maintain a public register of any Commissioner Act 1967 informing the gifts or hospitality received by members over the Ombudsman that disclosure of the information value of £25. sought would be contrary to the public interest. This is the first time such a notice has been given 3.27 Similarly in the second case, the order preventing in relation to a Code investigation by the the Ombudsman from even conducting her Ombudsman which causes the investigation to investigation will again fuel perceptions of cease automatically, and without the something to hide and again does not compare Ombudsman being able to review the favourably with the requirement in the Local information in question. Government Act 2000 for councillors to record their interests in a public register and to declare 3.24 While it would not be appropriate for the their interests at meetings of the Council which Committee to comment on the substance of the discuss issues in which they may have a personal two investigations, these cases do raise some interest. general issues of concern about the impact on public perceptions of openness and trust in Members of Parliament & UK central government. These concerns arise from the way the complaints were handled and in Members of the European Parliament comparisons that may be made with the standards’ frameworks that apply to other public office-holders. Standards Issue

3.25 The Ombudsman is right to be concerned about Strengthening of the standards framework the length of time taken by the Government to respond to these two complaints. In the first case governing the conduct of Members of it took over 16 months to provide guidance to Parliament (MPs) government departments on how to respond to the request, making it impossible to meet their Source obligations under the Information Code. In the 3.28 The reports of the House of Commons second, it took over 10 months to respond to the Committee on Standards and Privileges60 and the Ombudsman’s statement of complaint. In the House of Commons Commission61 in response to Committee’s view, such delays serve to fuel a this Committee’s Eighth Report on Standards of perception of mistrust by the public in Conduct in the House of Commons62. government by creating the impression (whether false or not) that there is something to hide. This The Committee’s Interest perception can only be reinforced when, in both 3.29 Although the Committee’s Eighth Report and the cases, the Government eventually decided not to House of Commons response to it are also disclose the information, though by different covered in section 2 of this annual report, the mechanisms. Committee believes that any review of standards in public life during 2003 would be incomplete 3.26 The type of information that the Government without reference to the positive response made refused to disclose in these cases, when by Members of Parliament to this Committee’s compared to other standards frameworks, can recommendations. also add (however unfairly) to a public perception that there is something to hide. In the 3.30 In the Committee’s First Report we stated:

58 see footnote 52. 59 Written Answer by the President of the Board of Trade, 4 July 1995 (PQ. 23784 Column 146). 60 see footnote 8. 61 see footnote 9. 62 see footnote 1.

14 Standards in Public Life During 2003 “A Standards Check“

“The House of Commons is at the heart of our apply in cases where it might prevent the democracy. The standards of conduct observed investigation and prosecution of a case involving by members is crucially important to the political a Member of Parliament. In its First Report67 the well being of the nation…. It is vital for the Committee recommended that “the Government quality of Government, for the effective scrutiny should now take steps to clarify the law relating of Government, and for the democratic process to bribery of or receipt of a bribe by a Member of that Members of Parliament should maintain the Parliament”. The Committee’s Sixth Report68 highest standards of propriety in discharging their which reviewed the recommendations of the First obligations to the public which elects them. It is Report, amplified this by recommending that also essential for public confidence that they should be seen to do so.” 63 “The Government should introduce its proposed legislation on the criminal law on bribery as soon 3.31 This remains the case and, significantly, the as possible in order to remove any uncertainty Committee concluded in its Eighth Report that, regarding the offence of bribery and to make it since the adoption of the standards framework in clear that members of both Houses of Parliament, 1995 following the recommendations in the acting in their capacity as members, and those Committee’s first report “real progress has been who bribe a member of either House of made in establishing and enforcing high Parliament fall within its scope.“ standards of conduct.” However during its inquiry the Committee identified a lack of clarity 3.34 The Committee therefore welcomed69 the Home in the regulatory arrangements in the House, Office’s initiative in putting draft legislation notably in the position of the Commissioner for forward for scrutiny by both Houses, which Standards and of the Committee on Standards aimed to deal with this important point. The draft and Privileges. There were also concerns that the legislation appeared to meet the main concern of arrangements do not ensure fairness for Members the Committee, that Members of Parliament against whom allegations are made. The should be treated, in so far as the criminal law of Committee made recommendations to address corruption is concerned, in exactly the same way these concerns and welcomes the acceptance by as other citizens. The draft legislation also the House of the majority of these ensured that all holders of public office would be recommendations, and where recommendations treated the same way as private citizens. were not accepted, measures introduced to achieve the same aim. 3.35 While the Joint Committee supported the aim of the legislation to make MPs and Peers subject to Standards Issue the same corruption law as everyone else, they were concerned that the draft clause aimed at The offence of corruption as it relates to achieving this was drawn too widely. In particular, Members of Parliament they were concerned that the clause would also apply to witnesses appearing before Select Source Committees and to comments made by MPs or 3.32 The draft Corruption Legislation64 submitted by Peers in Parliament in relation to prosecutions to the Home Office to the Joint Scrutiny Committee which they were not co-defendants. Their view is and that Committee’s subsequent report65 on the that the balance of public interest, in these cases, draft Bill and the Government’s response66. lies with protecting freedom of speech in Parliament. The Joint Scrutiny Committee rejected The Committee’s Interest the draft legislation and invited the Home Office 3.33 Since its inception this Committee has called for to bring forward a revised Bill taking account of clarification of the law relating to bribery and the the points it had raised. receipt of a bribe by a Member of Parliament. The need for clarification arises because of the 3.36 As a result the Government did not include the question whether parliamentary privilege (the Bill in its legislative programme for 2003-04 but protection of what members say in Parliament published its response70 to the Joint Committee from any outside interference) should continue to Report in December 2003. In that response the

63 see footnote 6, p,20. 64 Cm 5777. 65 HC 705, HL Paper 157. 66 The Government Reply to the Report from the Joint Committee on the Draft Corruption Bill. Cm 6086, December 2003. 67 see footnote 6. 68 see footnote 15. 69 Sir Nigel Wicks’ letter to Lord Slynn, 12 May 2003 available at www.public-standards.gov.uk.

15 Annual Report 2003

Government undertook to consult further on someone to a position for which they had not these points with both Houses and to continue applied or been interviewed, despite an open the revision of the draft Bill with a view to competition having been held for positions on introducing it in Parliament in due course. This the particular Committee. The Commissioner was Committee will continue to press for this made aware of this situation before the important clarification to the law on corruption. appointment was made. Despite raising this with the Department, the Minister went ahead and appointed the individual. While the Members and senior officers in Commissioner made clear in her report that Non-Departmental Public Bodies DEFRA had done a great deal to ensure their public appointments processes are fair and open, Standards Issue this particular case was unprecedented in her experience. Compliance with the Commissioner for 3.40 This Committee is concerned by this case. While Public Appointments’ Code of Practice and media reports suggest that the Minister took this the Commissioner’s powers to intervene course of action in an attempt to rebalance the during an appointment process which she interests represented on this particular Committee, this could, and should, have been believes has become flawed achieved within the terms of the Commissioner’s Code. The Commissioner’s Annual Report makes Source clear that the vast majority of the public 3.37 The 2002-3 Annual Report of The Commissioner appointments under her jurisdiction were made for Public Appointments71 about a specific in compliance with her Code. Even so, cases appointment made to a public body sponsored such as this, which rightly receive considerable by the Department for Environment, Food and publicity, can damage the public’s perception of Rural Affairs (DEFRA). the public appointments’ process as well as standards in public life. The Committee’s Interest 3.38 The Office of the Commissioner for Public 3.41 This Committee is particularly concerned by the Appointments was established in 1995 to fact that, although the Commissioner was aware implement recommendations made in this that there were problems during the process and Committee’s First Report to ensure that all raised these with the Department, she had no government departments have in place systems powers to intervene and halt the process until the for making appointments which are visible, fair, correct procedures were followed. This and open and that all appointments to the boards Committee notes that the powers of the of public bodies are made on merit. The Commissioner for Public Appointments in Commissioner published a revised Code of Scotland do allow her to make representations to Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public the Scottish Parliament during an appointment Bodies72 in 2001 which sets out the regulatory process and for the Parliament to halt the process process for the public appointments process and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the Code is based upon this Committee’s Seven Principles is being followed. The Public Administration of Public Life. The Commissioner reports Select Committee (PASC) in their recent report73 annually on compliance with the Code of recommended that the Commissioner for Practice and on complaints about public England and for Wales be given some similar appointments she has received and dealt with. type of intervention powers.

3.39 In this year’s report, the Commissioner took the 3.42 The Government, in its response to the PASC unusual step of highlighting one specific and report in December 200374, rejected this serious complaint that she had upheld relating to recommendation, setting out its belief that the a ministerial appointment to a Department for current powers of the Commissioner were Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) effective. It did however note the new powers sponsored body. In this case a Minister appointed available to the Commissioner in Scotland and

70 see footnote 66. 71 The Commissioner for Public Appointments, Eighth Report 2002-2003. 72 Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies July 2001. 73 Government By Appointment: Opening Up The Patronage State HC 165-I. 74 Government Response to “Government By Appointment: Opening Up The Patronage State”, Cm 6056, December 2003.

16 Standards in Public Life During 2003 “A Standards Check“

undertook to monitor how these provisions 3.46 Meanwhile the involvement of the Audit operate. Whether the Commissioner in England Commission, at the request of the Department of and Wales has adequate powers to deal with Health, to undertake a five-year rolling abuses of the Code is a matter on which this programme of spot checks, and the measures that Committee will take evidence as part of its are being implemented to address deliberate Tenth Inquiry, “Getting the Balance Right: misreporting as a result of its first report, are Implementing Standards of Conduct in important steps to improve standards. The Public Life.“75 Committee welcomes this approach which it believes demonstrates the importance of external Members and senior officers in independent scrutiny of standards in public life.

National Health Service bodies 3.47 The Committee believes that action by the Audit Commission, taken together with the case of the Standards Issue contract awarded to supply smallpox vaccines covered earlier, illustrate clearly that: Misreporting, particularly deliberate misreporting, of the achievement of key “systems of independent investigation into allegations of misconduct can play a critical role national targets by National Health in allaying suspicions about the conduct of Service Trusts76 public office-holders and thereby contribute to increased public trust.” Source 3.43 The Audit Commission report on Waiting List Members and senior officers of other Accuracy77 which followed media reports about alleged individual cases of misreporting. bodies discharging publicly–funded functions The Committee’s Interest 3.44 Targets for the delivery of key services to the Standards Issue public are an important tool to improve the quality of services and to make public office- The system for making judicial holders more accountable to the public for the services they provide. However concern has appointments been expressed that some National Health Service Trusts have misreported their Source achievement of these targets so as to meet key 3.48 Consultation papers issued by the Department for performance indicators set by the Department of Constitutional Affairs on a new way of appointing Health. In addition to the actual impact on the judges and on a Supreme Court for the United services as a result of misreporting, in particular Kingdom78 and the Committee’s response79. The deliberate misreporting, such behaviour falls well first and second annual reports of the below the standards of conduct that the public Commission for Judicial Appointments80. expects from public servants and leads to an erosion of trust in public office-holders. The Committee’s Interest 3.49 The Committee has considered issues relating to 3.45 The report by the Audit Commission on “spot public appointments on several occasions as part checks“ at 41 Trusts during 2002 discovered of its inquiries and one of its Seven Principles of evidence of deliberate misreporting of waiting list Public Life, Objectivity, states that81 “In carrying information at three trusts. This is clearly a matter out public business, including public of concern related to standards in public life and appointments…holders of public office should one which raises issues of general concern which make their choices on merit”. While the the Committee may wish to consider in the Committee has not inquired specifically into the future. appointment of judges it did note the concerns

75 see footnote 3. 76 As set out on the Committee’s website at www.public-standards.gov.uk, in the Register of Interests, Committee member Sir Alistair Graham is Northern and Yorkshire Regional Commissioner for the NHS Appointments Commission. 77 Waiting List accuracy, Audit Commission, March 2003. 78 Constitutional Reform: CP10/03 a new way of appointing judges & CP11/03 a Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. Published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, July 2003. 79 The Chair’s letter to the Department for Constitutional Affairs November 2003 available at www.public-standards.gov.uk. 80 The Commission for Judicial Appointments Annual Report 2003 published in October 2003. 81 see footnote 6, p.14.

17 Annual Report 2003

about the existing process raised in the Government. The framework is now substantially Commission for Judicial Appointments’ first and in place and operational. Key elements include: second annual reports. • a Model Code of Conduct, approved by 3.50 The Committee therefore welcomed the Parliament in November 2001, which consultation process set out in the documents contains a set of mandatory provisions that issued in July 2003 by the Department of must be included in local codes of conduct Constitutional Affairs. These documents sought (by May 2002); views on, among other matters, new • the creation of the Standards Board for arrangements for appointing judges. In its England in 2001, an independent body, as a response82 the Committee welcomed the regulator to oversee the Code of Conduct and proposed new appointments system, whereby to promote and maintain high standards of initial judicial appointments and subsequent conduct by all members; and promotions would be made on merit and through • the creation of local non-political Standards a transparent process and not on the basis of Committees to decide on less serious cases actual or perceived political support or other referred by the Standards Board (from June allegiance. The Committee also made clear its 2003). belief that the new system should be operated by an independent Judicial Appointments 3.53 The Standards Board Annual Review 2002-03 Commission and that any discretion for Ministers therefore covered the first full year of the on appointments should be very narrowly operation of the new framework. During that circumscribed. The Secretary of State for year the Board received 2,948 allegations of Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor, Lord misconduct of which 43% came from members, Falconer of Thoroton, subsequently made a 40% were from the public and 17% were from statement in the House of Lords on 26 January other sources (e.g. council officials). Fifty five 2004 on the Government’s plans in light of the percent (55%) of the allegations were about responses to the consultation. The Committee parish councillors, whose inclusion within the welcomes these plans which appear to have scope of the code of practice has caused some incorporated the vast majority of the points made questions to be raised about the proportionality in its response. of including this tier of local government. Of the allegations made 1,142 (44%) were referred for investigation and of those 25% found no Elected members and senior officers evidence of a breach of the code. In the 75% of of local authorities83 cases where evidence of a breach was found, penalties, up to disqualification for one year Standards Issue were applied. Statistics for the early part of 2003-04 broadly follow these patterns although allegations made by members of the public as a Operation of the standards framework for proportion of the total has risen and the local government proportion of allegations referred for investigation has fallen. Source 3.51 The annual report of the Standards Board for 3.54 Some commentators have attributed this level of England and Wales84. allegation to a general lack of standards in local government. Others have attributed it to a The Committee’s Interest bureaucratic and disproportionate approach to 3.52 A new standards framework for Local standards (particularly at the parish council level) Government was introduced through the Local that will itself serve to erode public trust in local Government Act 2000. This followed the democracy. The Committee does not subscribe to recommendations made in this Committee’s Third the view that a steady flow of complaints Report85 on Standards of Conduct in Local necessarily represents evidence either of low or

82 see footnote 79. 83 As set out on the Committee’s website at www.public-standards.gov.uk, in the Register of Interests, the Chair’s spouse is a local government councillor. 84 The Standards Board for England Annual Review 2002/03. 85 The Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: Standards of Conduct in Local Government Cm 3702-1 July 1997.

18 Standards in Public Life During 2003 “A Standards Check“

falling standards or of an overly bureaucratic standards framework. Indeed, an absence of complaints can indicate an ineffective standards framework, with individuals either afraid to come forward or unsure to whom to address complaints. The Committee is inclined to believe that the public will only have confidence in standards as long as they can be sure that any wrongdoing will be brought to light and dealt with in a fair and open manner. Nevertheless, proportionality is one of the Committee’s key concerns in the implementation of any of its recommendations. The management and enforcement of the code of conducts across local government will form a central part of our Tenth Inquiry, “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life“86 during 2004.

86 see footnote 3.

19 Annual Report 2003

RESEARCH INTO PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARD STANDARDS OF CONDUCT IN PUBLIC LIFE

4.1 In 2001 the Committee decided to widen its 4.4 In January 2002 the contract to undertake this understanding of the public’s perceptions and first stage was awarded to the National Centre for views of standards in pubic life through a Social Research (NatCen)89 following a programme of research. The widespread adoption competitive tendering process. During 2002, of the Seven Principles of Public Life, established NatCen held 15 focus groups across six by the Committee in 199587 provides some geographical locations in England, Scotland and evidence that public office-holders find them Wales to provide the basic qualitative helpful. However it is unclear whether the information to ensure that, in the later Principles reflect what the public regards to be questionnaire design, the right questions were important in ensuring the highest standards. The asked of the public. NatCen published their aims of the research were therefore to: report on this phase of the research in January 200390. • explore whether there is broad agreement about the meaning of each principle; Stage 2 • whether they reflect the priorities of the public; and 4.5 Following the completion of Stage 1, the • how the public decides where to draw the Committee held a competitive tendering process line between acceptable and unacceptable for Stages 2 and 3 of the research in January behaviour. 200391. Stage 2 was to be the development and testing of detailed questions that would be used 4.2 In September 2001, the Chair outlined the in Stage 3, a representative survey and analysis of Committee’s plans for a long-term study88 to the results. Following considerable interest from establish such a benchmark of public opinion the research community in the UK, the contract and one that could be repeated in the future to was awarded to BMRB Social Research on 15 provide a rolling assessment of public opinion April 200392. BMRB successfully completed the and the standards in public life. Because of the testing of detailed questions in October 2003 relative lack of in-depth studies in this area, the and, with the endorsement of the Committee, research project was structured in three distinct began the Stage 3 fieldwork in November. stages: Stage 3 Stage 1 4.6 The detailed questions developed in Stage 2 have 4.3 This involved qualitative research to: been incorporated into a questionnaire that is currently being completed by members of the • clarify what the public sees as the key issues public throughout the country. It is hoped that relating to standards in public life; this fieldwork will be completed in February • provide the material from which to develop 2004 and the data analysed and published later questions on acceptable and unacceptable in the year. The Committee is determined that the behaviour for stages 2 and 3; and research should be of first class quality and • to decide which groups of office-holders to authority so it can form an important addition to survey. the body of evidence available to the Committee

87 see footnote 6. 88 Press Notice 97, 10 September 2001, available on the Committee’s website www.public-standards.gov.uk. 89 Press Notice 101, 23 January 2002. 90 Guiding Principles: Public Attitudes towards Conduct in Public Life. Available on the NatCen website www.natcen.ac.uk. 91 Press Notice 135, 10 January 2003. 92 Press Notice 139, 15 April 2003.

20 Research

and more widely93. As highlighted in other parts of this report, any consideration of standards issues must take place within an overall appreciation of the public’s perceptions of standards in public life and their level of trust in public institutions.

Advisory Board

4.7 In order to assist the Committee and the researchers, an Advisory Board was appointed in November 2001 and has been involved in all the key milestones of the research. Its membership is drawn from the Committee, and representative academics and practitioners in related fields. The Advisory Board is chaired by Hazel Genn CBE, Professor of Socio-Legal Studies at University College London and member of the Committee. Other members are:

• Professor Alice Brown (until 31 March 2003) (Professor of Politics and a Vice Principal at the University of Edinburgh); • Professor Alan Doig (Centre for Fraud Management Studies, Teeside Business School); • Deirdre Hutton CBE (until 31 March 2003) (Chairman of the National Consumers Council); • Professor Charlie Jeffery (Head of the German Politics Research Group at the University of Birmingham); • Jean Martin (Director of the Data Methodology and Evaluation Division, Office of National Statistics); • Dr Mark Philp (Head of the Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Oxford); and • Peter Riddell (Assistant Editor (Politics), The Times and Visiting Professor of Political History at Queen Mary Westfield College, London.

The Committee is very grateful to the members of the Advisory Board for their work.

93 All the data from the research will be deposited with the ESRC.

21 Annual Report 2003

22 Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1

ABOUT THE COMMITTEE

Terms of reference Method of working

The Committee on Standards in Public Life was The Committee has developed a structured approach established, under the chairmanship of the Rt Hon to its studies: The Lord Nolan, by the then Prime Minister, the Rt Hon John Major, in October 1994, with the following • publishing a consultation paper setting out the terms of reference: issues and questions it believes are of specific importance; “To examine current concerns about standards of • where appropriate commission research to conduct of all holders of public office, including support evidence-based inquiry arrangements relating to financial and commercial • inviting written submissions based on the issues activities, and make recommendations as to any and questions paper; changes in present arrangements which might be • informal meetings with practitioners and experts; required to ensure the highest standards of propriety • formal hearings, open to the public and the in public life.” media, at which the issues are explored in detail; and The term “holders of public office“ includes: • publication of a report, and a CD-ROM Ministers, civil servants and advisers; Members of containing the transcripts of oral evidence, written Parliament and UK Members of the European evidence and other related material. Parliament; members and senior officers of all NDPBs and of NHS bodies; non-Ministerial office-holders; When it began its work, the Committee agreed that members and other senior officers of other bodies its public hearings should be open to radio and discharging publicly-funded functions; and elected television as well as the written media. Agreement members and senior officers of local authorities. was reached with the broadcasters to enable them to have a presence at the hearings in a way that kept On 12 November 1997, the Prime Minister, the disturbance to witnesses to a minimum. Rt Hon Tony Blair MP announced additional terms of reference: Written evidence received for our first four reports has been deposited in the Public Records Offices of “To review issues in relation to the funding of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For political parties, and to make recommendations as to subsequent reports written evidence is published on any changes in present arrangements.” a CD-ROM as part of the report.

The Committee is an independent advisory Non- Departmental Public Body (NDPB). The Prime Minister appoints its members for renewable periods of up to three years.

The remit of the Committee excludes investigation of individual allegations of misconduct.

23 Annual Report 2003

APPENDIX 2

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

The Prime Minister appoints the Chair and members of the Committee for renewable periods of up to three years. Each of the three main political parties may nominate one person to serve on the Committee.

Sir Nigel Wicks GCB CVO CBE Sir Nigel relinquished his Chairmanship of CRESTCo (Chair) and was appointed non-executive Deputy Chairman Appointed 1 March 2001 of Euroclear plc and Euroclear Bank SA/NV. He is Term Ends 29 February 2004 also a non-executive Chairman of CRESTCo Staff Benefit Trustees Ltd. He is a Governor of King’s Having worked for British College School, Wimbledon and Chairman of the Petroleum Ltd from 1958, and Advisory Group on the Corporation of the City of studied business administration at Portsmouth London’s Brussels Office. College of Technology, Sir Nigel read history at Jesus College, Cambridge from 1963 to 1966, before Rita Donaghy OBE returning to British Petroleum for a further two years. Appointed 1 March 2001 In 1968, he joined HM Treasury, holding various Reappointed 1 March 2004 positions until 1975, when he became Private Term Ends 28 February 2007 Secretary to two successive Prime Ministers – first Harold Wilson, then James (now Lord) Callaghan. Chair of ACAS (Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Returning to the Treasury in 1978, Sir Nigel spent five Service) since October 2000. Formerly President of years as head of the Energy Division. From 1980 to the TUC (Trades Union Congress) 1999-2000; 1982, he served on the Board of the British National Member of Low Pay Commission 1997-2000; Oil Corporation. Between 1983 and 1985, he was Advisory Committee on Employment of People with Economic Minister at the British Embassy in Disabilities 1995-1997; Chair of the TUC Women’s Washington, also serving as the UK Executive Committee 1997-2000; Member of European TUC Director at the World Bank and International Executive 1992-2000; Member of TUC General Monetary Fund. Council 1987-2000; Member of NALGO/UNISON National Executive Council 1973-2000; President of In 1985, Sir Nigel was appointed Principal Private NALGO 1989-1990; Assistant Registrar, then Secretary to the Prime Minister, Margaret (now Permanent Secretary of the Students’ Union, Institute Baroness) Thatcher, a position he held until 1988. He of Education, University of London 1968-2000. was the Prime Minister’s Personal Representative for Graduated from Durham University. the Economic Summits of the Group of Seven Industrialised Nations between 1988 and 1991. Professor Hazel Genn CBE Appointed 1 October 2003 From 1989 to 2000, Sir Nigel was Second Permanent Term ends 30 September 2006 Secretary and Director of International Finance at the Treasury. Hazel Genn is Professor of Socio- Legal Studies and Faculty Research Among many senior international positions, Sir Nigel Director in the Faculty of Laws at was Chairman of the European Community Monetary University College, London, where she is also an Committee between 1993 and 1998, and, between honorary Fellow. She previously held a Chair and July 2000 and February 2001, a member of the EU was Head of the Department of Law at Queen Mary Committee of “Wise Men“ on European Securities and Westfield College, University of London. Before Regulation. In May 2001, Sir Nigel was appointed joining London University in 1985, she held full-time non-executive Chairman of CRESTCo. In October research posts at Oxford University Centre for Socio- 2002, following CRESTCo’s merger with Euroclear, Legal Studies (1974-1985) and the Cambridge

24 Appendix 2

Institute of Criminology (1972-74). Professor Genn 1996) then of the Leeds Training and Enterprise holds degrees from the Universities of London and Council (1996 – 2000). During this latter period he Hull, and an honorary Doctorate from Kingston also served as Chairman of the Parades Commission University. She has been a Fellow of the British for Northern Ireland (1997 – 2000). Academy since 2000, a member of its Council since 2001 and was appointed Vice-President in 2002. She Baroness Maddock was awarded a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours Appointed 1 November 2003 List in 2000 for research into civil justice. Term ends 31 October 2006

She has held many public appointments on bodies Diana Maddock taught in including the Economic and Social Research Council, Southampton, Bournemouth and the Judicial Studies Board, the Higher Education Sweden until she had a family, and Funding Council and the Civil Justice Council. She became involved in politics in the mid 70’s. She has recently completed inquiries for the Human joined the Liberal Party in 1976. She was elected to Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and acted as Southampton City Council in 1984, only giving up Independent Reviewer for the Quinquennial Review her seat when she was elected to Parliament as MP of the Social Security Advisory Committee. She for Christchurch at a by-election in 1993. On the currently holds posts as an Associate Adjudicator for council she was Leader of the Liberal Democrat the Audit Commission and chairs the Advisory Board Group and had a particular interest in housing and for the attitudinal research commissioned by the energy conservation. Committee of Standards in Public Life. She served as Member of Parliament for Christchurch Sir Alistair Graham from 1993-1997. During that time she served on the Appointed 1 October 2003 committees of a number of Parliamentary Bills Term ends 30 September 2006 covering Housing, Finance and Building Societies. She was also Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats Sir Alistair is currently Chairman of on housing, the family and women’s issues. the Police Complaints Authority where he is preparing for the In 1994, Diana Maddock came out number 1 in the transfer to the new Independent Police Complaints Private Members Bill Ballot. She chose the Home Commission. He is also Chairman of the West Energy Conservation Bill, which she successfully Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority, Vice-President of piloted through all its parliamentary stages to become Opera North, non-executive director of the the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995. Information Commission and a member of the Fitness to Practice Committee of the General Optical She is President of the National Housing Forum, a Council. Vice-President of the National Housing Federation, and a Vice-President of The National Home Sir Alistair was educated at the Royal Grammar Improvement Council and National Energy Action. School, Newcastle upon Tyne. He is a Fellow of the She is also a Trustee of the National Energy Institute of Personnel Development and the Institute Foundation and the Wessex Medical Trust. of Training and Development. He has been a visiting Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford (1984 – 1992) Diana Maddock has been a life peer since and visiting Professor of the Management School, November 1997. In the House of Lords she is Imperial College, London University (1989 – 1991). Housing Spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats He has an honorary Doctorate from the Open and a member of the Lords European Union Select University. He was knighted in the Millennium Committee. From 1998-2000, Diana Maddock was Honours List for services to the Parades Commission Federal President of the Liberal Democrat Party. for Northern Ireland. Rabbi Dame Julia Neuberger DBE Sir Alistair has had a long and varied career in public Appointed 1 March 2001 service. Between 1966 and 1986 he worked for the Reappointed 1 March 2004 Civil and Public Services Association, as Assistant Terms Ends 28 February 2007 Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and General Secretary. His next post was as Chief Executive of the Julia Neuberger is a member of Industrial Society (now renamed “The Work Unilever's Central Ethical Foundation”) between 1986 and 1991, after which Compliance Group and a part-time consultant to the he became Chief Executive of Calderdale and Clore Duffield Charitable Foundation. She was Kirklees Training and Enterprise Council (1991 – educated at Newnham College, Cambridge and Leo

25 Annual Report 2003

Baeck College, London. She became a rabbi in 1977, occasional Lecturer at Queen Mary and Westfield and served the South London Liberal Synagogue for College. She is an Honorary Fellow of St Hilda's twelve years, before going to the King’s Fund Institute College, Oxford, and a Deputy Lieutenant of the as a Visiting Fellow, to work on research ethics County of Norfolk. committees in the United Kingdom. Rabbi Neuberger then became a fellow at Harvard Medical School in The Rt Hon Chris Smith MP 1991-1992, having gone to the United States on a Appointed 1 November 2001 Harkness Fellowship. Julia was made a DBE in the Term Ends 31 October 2004 2004 New Years Honours List. Chris Smith was Secretary of State She was Chief Executive of the King’s Fund, an for Culture, Media and Sport from independent health care charity, for six years until 1997 until May 2001. In 31 December 2003 and Chairman of Camden & Opposition, he held a number of posts as Shadow Islington Community Health Services NHS Trust from Secretary of State: Health (1996 to 1997), Social April 1993 until November 1997. She was formerly a Security (1995 to 1996), National Heritage (1994 to member of the General Medical Council, a trustee of 1995), and Environmental Protection (1992 to 1994). the Runnymede Trust and a member of the Board of From 1987 to 1992, Chris Smith was a Shadow Visitors of Memorial Church, Harvard University. She Minister in John Smith’s Treasury team. He has been is a Trustee of the Imperial War Museum and holds the Member of Parliament for Islington South and honorary doctorates from nine universities, is an Finsbury since June 1983. honorary fellow of Mansfield College, Oxford and was Chancellor of the University of Ulster from Chris Smith was educated at George Watson’s 1994-2000. College, Edinburgh and Pembroke College, Cambridge. He also spent time at Harvard University She is also the author of several books on Judaism, (as a Kennedy Scholar) in 1975 to 1976, and gained women, healthcare ethics and on caring for dying a PhD in English from Cambridge in 1979. He served people. as a Councillor in the London Borough of Islington from 1978 to 1983 and worked for the Shaftesbury Rt Hon Gillian Shephard DL MP Society Housing Association and the Society for Appointed 1 November 2003 Co-operative Dwellings. Term ends 31 October 2006 He has previously been an Executive Committee Gillian Shephard has been MP for Member of the National Trust, and Chairman of the South West Norfolk since 1987. Fabian Society and of Tribune Newspaper. He is Before entering Parliament, she was currently Director of the Clore Cultural Leadership an inspector of schools, worked in independent Programme, Adviser to The Walt Disney Company television and lectured for the WEA and the Ltd, Visiting Professor at the London Institute, Cambridge University Extra-Mural Board. She was a President of SERA (Labour’s environmental Magistrate, a County Councillor, a Mental Health Act organisation), Chairman of the Wordsworth Trust, Commissioner, and Chairman of two Health Chairman of the Classic FM Consumers’ Panel, and Authorities. a Senior Associate of the Judge Institute for Management Studies at Cambridge University. Five years after entering the House of Commons Gillian Shephard was appointed to the Cabinet, where she served between 1992 and 1997 successively as Secretary of State for Employment, Minister of Agriculture, Secretary of State for Education, and Secretary of State for Education and Employment.

In Opposition Gillian Shephard has served as Shadow Leader of the House of Commons, and Shadow Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. She is currently a member of the DEFRA Select Committee.

She is a member of the Council of Oxford University, a member of the Franco British Council, and an

26 Appendix 2

Members whose term of appointment came to an end during 2003:

Professor Alice Brown degrees from Cambridge and Harvard. He became a Appointed 1 November 1998 QC in 1979. He has held senior positions in national Reappointed 1 November 2001 and international human rights organisations. He was Term Ended 31 October 2004 founder member of the SDP and the Liberal Stood down: 31 March 2003 Democrats and fought four parliamentary elections. He was a member of the Liberal Democrat Policy Alice Brown graduated from the Committee from 1988 to 1997. He was knighted in University of Edinburgh in 1983 with a degree in 1989 and appointed a life peer in 1997. He is Economics and Politics before completing a PhD on currently a member of the House of Lords Select the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Committee on the Procedure of the House and the She has held various lecturing posts and is currently Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. Professor of Politics and a Vice-Principal at the University of Edinburgh. Professor Brown was a Frances Heaton member of the Scottish Constitutional Commission Appointed 1 January 1998 and the Scottish cross-party Consultative Steering Reappointed 1 January 2001 Group, which proposed Standing Orders and Term Ended 31 December 2003 Procedures for the Scottish Parliament. She is Chair of the Community Planning Taskforce in Scotland, a Frances Heaton is a non-executive member of Scottish Higher Education Funding Director of Legal & General Group Council (SHEFC), and on the Research Grants Board plc and AWG plc. She was educated at Trinity of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). College, Dublin and qualified as a barrister before entering the Civil Service in 1967, where she worked, On 27 June 2002, the Scottish Parliament formally principally in the Treasury. In 1980 she joined Lazard approved Professor Brown’s appointment as Scottish and was a Director from 1987 to 2001. She was Public Services Ombudsman. On taking up her seconded as Director-General of the Takeover Panel appointment on 31 March 2003 Professor Brown from 1992 to 1994 and was a non-executive Director ceased to be a member of the Committee. of the Bank of England from 1993 to 2001.

Sir Anthony Cleaver The Rt Hon Lord MacGregor of Appointed 1 January 1998 Pulham Market OBE Reappointed 1 January 2001 Appointed 1 November 1997 Term Ended 31 December 2003 Reappointed 1 November 2000 Term Ended 31 October 2003 After graduating from Oxford in Literae Humaniores, Sir Anthony John MacGregor was Member of joined IBM UK in 1962 and, over the following 30 Parliament for South Norfolk from February 1974 to years, held a range of positions, both in the UK and May 2001. He served in eight different posts in the abroad, culminating as Chairman and CEO of IBM Government from 1979 to 1994, including five UK. He then became Chairman of the UK Atomic Cabinet posts over nine years – Chief Secretary to the Energy Authority and led the privatisation and Treasury, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, subsequent flotation of AEA Technology plc. Sir Secretary of State for Education and Science, Lord Anthony has also chaired a number of Government President of the Council and Leader of the House of committees and became Chairman of the Medical Commons, and Secretary of State for Transport. Prior Research Council in 1998. to entering Parliament he worked for two Prime Ministers, was a journalist and an Investment Banking Following his retirement from AEA Technology in Director. Currently he is non-executive Director of January 2002, Sir Anthony became Chairman of UK four public companies and a member of the European eUniversities Worldwide Limited. Supervisory Board of another, and serves on various charitable, educational and voluntary organisations. The Lord Goodhart QC He was educated at Merchiston Castle School, Appointed 1 November 1997 Edinburgh and St Andrews University (MA) and Reappointed 1 November 2000 King’s College, London (LLB). John MacGregor was Term Ended 31 October 2003 created a Life Peer in the 2001 dissolution honours list. He is currently a member of the House of Lords William Goodhart started practice Constitution Committee. as a barrister in 1960 after obtaining

27 Annual Report 2003

Members taking up appointment from January 2004:

Dame Patricia Hodgson DBE Dr Brian Woods-Scawen DL Appointed 1 January 2004 Appointed 1 January 2004 Term ends 31 December 2006 Term ends 31 December 2006

Dame Patricia Hodgson is Vice- Brian Woods-Scawen was the President of the Royal Television Executive Chairman of Society and a member of the PricewaterhouseCoopers Midlands Statistics Commission. Dame Patricia has worked as a region from 1993 to 2003, and a member of producer and journalist and in the 1970s was a PricewaterhouseCoopers Supervisory Board from founder-member of the distance learning team at the 1998 to 2003 and Chairman from 2001. Brian Open University. Between 1983 and 2000 at the BBC Woods-Scawen holds degrees from the Universities of she was Deputy Secretary, then Secretary (1983 – Sheffield and Warwick and an honorary doctorate 1987), Head of Policy (1987 – 1992) and then from the University of Birmingham. He is a Fellow of Director of Policy and Planning (1993 – 2000). Dame the Institute of Chartered Accountants and a Fellow of Patricia served on the Monopolies and Mergers the Royal Society of Arts. He is a Deputy Lieutenant Commission (1993 – 1999), as a non-executive of the County of the West Midlands. He currently member of the London Arts Board and a Trustee of the holds public appointment as Chairman of West Prince’s Youth Business Trust. She has also served on Midlands Life, where he is responsible for regional the Advisory Board of the Judge Institute for cultural strategy, and was a Board member of Management Studies, Cambridge. She was Chief Advantage West Midlands (the Regional Development Executive of the Independent Television Commission Agency) from its formation in 1998 until 2003. He is from September 2000 until December 2003. Chairman of West Midlands Broadband Company Limited, a non-executive director of West Bromwich Dame Patricia holds an MA from Newnham College Building Society and Chairman of Coventry, Solihull Cambridge, and honorary doctorates from City and Warwick Partnership. University and the University of Essex. She was an Associate Fellow of Newnham College between 1993 Brian Woods-Scawen worked for and 1996. She was made a CBE in 1995 and a DBE PricewaterhouseCoopers, in the UK and overseas, in the 2004 New Year Honours List. from 1971 to 2003, becoming a partner in 1980. His previous responsibilities have included membership of the Board of (the then) Coopers & Lybrand Corporate Finance (1986-1993). He was a member of the Coopers & Lybrand Board from 1993 to that firm’s merger with Price Waterhouse in 1998, including membership of the Major Contracts Committee and Chairman of their Remuneration Committee (1994 – 1998). Until 2001 he was a board member of PricewaterhouseCoopers Global Board and a member of the Finance Committee. He is a member of the Council of Warwick University and a member of the International Advisory Board of the European Research Institute at Birmingham University.

28 Appendix 2

Remuneration Code of Practice and Register of Interest Those Committee members who do not already receive a salary from public funds may claim £180 In accordance with the best practice recommended for each day they work on Committee business. in its first report, and in line with the Government’s Chris Smith and Gillian Shephard are paid from proposal that all advisory NDPBs should adopt a public funds and do not claim a fee. Sir Nigel Wicks board members’ code94, members of the Committee may claim £380 a day spent on Committee business. formally adopted a code of practice in March 1999. All members are reimbursed for actual expenses The code was readopted in June 2001. Members also incurred. provide details of their interests that might impinge on the work of the Committee. This is contained in the Committee’s Register of Interests, which is available from the Committee or via the website. The code of practice is shown overleaf.

94 Para 57 of Quangos Opening the Doors, published by the Cabinet Office, June 1998. 29 Annual Report 2003

CODE OF PRACTICE FOR MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS IN PUBLIC LIFE

Public service values discretion. (These restrictions do not apply to those members of the Committee who are 1. The members of the Committee on Standards in nominated by the political parties.) Public Life must at all times: Role of Committee members • observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to the 4. Members of the Committee have collective advice they provide and the management of responsibility for its operation. They must: this public body; • be accountable through the Prime Minister to • engage fully in collective consideration of the Parliament and to the public more generally issues, taking account of the full range of for the activities of the Committee and for the relevant factors, including any guidance issued standard of advice it provides; and by the Prime Minister or a government • in accordance with government policy on department; openness, comply fully with the Code of • ensure that the Code of Practice on Access to Practice on Access to Government Government Information (including prompt Information. responses to public requests for information) is adhered to; agree an annual report; and, 2. The Prime Minister is answerable to Parliament where practicable and appropriate, hold in for the policies and performance of the public meetings designed to elicit information Committee, including the policy framework from witnesses; within which it operates. • regularly place in the public domain information about the Committee’s activities; Standards in Public Life • respond appropriately to complaints; • ensure that the Committee does not exceed its 3. All Committee members must: powers or functions; and • obtain value for money in deploying the • follow the Seven Principles of Public Life set Committee’s budget. out by the Committee; • comply with this Code of Practice, and 5. Communications between the Committee and the ensure that they understand their duties, Prime Minister will generally be through the rights and responsibilities, and that they are Chairman, except where the Committee has familiar with the function and role of the agreed that an individual member should act on Committee and any relevant statements of its behalf. Nevertheless, any Committee member government policy. New Committee has the right to approach the Prime Minister on any members should be fully briefed on these matter which he or she believes raises important issues by the Secretary; issues relating to his or her duties as a Committee • not misuse information gained in the course member. In such cases the agreement of the rest of their public service for personal gain or for of the Committee should normally be sought. political purpose, nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote 6. Individual Committee members can be removed their private interests or those of connected from office by the Prime Minister if they fail to persons, firms, businesses or other perform the duties required of them in line with organisations; and the standards expected in public office. • not hold any paid or high-profile unpaid office in a political party, and not engage in The role of the Chair specific political activities on matters directly affecting the work of the Committee. When 7. The Chairman has particular responsibility for engaging in other political activities, providing effective leadership on the issues Committee members should be conscious of above. In addition, the Chairman is their public role and exercise proper responsible for:

30 Appendix 2

• ensuring that the Committee meets at 11. The Register of Interests should be kept up to appropriate intervals, and that the minutes of date and be open to public inspection. meetings and reports to the Prime Minister accurately record the decisions taken and, Oral declaration of interests where appropriate, the views of individual Committee members; 12. An oral declaration of any relevant interest, as • representing the views of the Committee to defined in paragraph 10 above, should be made the general public; and at any Committee meeting if it relates • ensuring that new Committee members are specifically to a particular issue under briefed on appointment and providing an consideration and should be recorded in the assessment of their performance to the Prime minutes of the meeting. Minister, on request, when members are considered for reappointment to the Committee or for appointment to the board Withdrawal from meetings of some other public body. 13. If the outcome of any discussion at a Committee meeting could have a direct pecuniary effect on Handling conflicts of interests a Committee member, that member should not participate in the discussion or determination of 8. The purpose of these provisions is to avoid any matters in which he or she has such an interest danger of Committee members being influenced, and should withdraw from the meeting (even if or appearing to be influenced, by their private held in public). interests in the exercise of their public duties. Personal liability of Committee Registration of interests members 9. All Committee members should register in the Committee’s Register of Interests any private 14. Legal proceedings by a third party against interest which might influence their judgement individual Committee members of advisory or which could be perceived (by a reasonable bodies are very exceptional. A Committee member of the public) to do so. member may be personally liable if he or she makes a fraudulent or negligent statement which 10. In particular, Committee members should results in a loss to a third party; or may commit register: a breach of confidence under common law or a criminal offence under insider dealing • relevant personal direct and indirect legislation, if he or she misuses information pecuniary interests; gained through their position. However, the • relevant direct and indirect pecuniary Government has indicated that individual interests of close family members of which Committee members who have acted honestly, Committee members could reasonably be reasonably, in good faith and without negligence expected to be aware; and will not have to meet out of their own personal • relevant personal non-pecuniary interests, resources any personal civil liability which is including those which arise from incurred in execution or purported execution of membership of clubs and other organisations. their Committee functions. This includes the costs of defending proceedings. Committee In this paragraph “relevant“ interest, whether members who need further advice should pecuniary or non-pecuniary and whether direct consult the Secretary in the first instance. or indirect, means any such interest which might influence the judgement of a Committee member or which could be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to influence his or her judgement in the exercise of his or her public duties; “indirect pecuniary interest“ means an interest which arises from connection with bodies which have a direct pecuniary interest or from being a business partner of, or employed by, a person with such an interest.

31 Annual Report 2003

APPENDIX 3

COMMUNICATIONS

Listening and Learning The Committee conducted a limited exercise to evaluate expressions of interest in, and responses to The Committee is committed to a way of working Issues and Questions consultation papers for the that encourages the involvement of those with an Eighth and Ninth Report. The results showed that interest in its work. Its arrangements are as broadsheet newspapers and direct contact from the transparent as any in the public sector, and the Chairman and/or Secretariat generated the great Committee is determined to do as much as is majority of interest. Electronic outlets (broadcast and reasonably possible to maintain and develop this the Internet) also played a small part in people transparency. finding out about the exercises, but our efforts to generate more interest with paid advertising was less The Committee makes consultation papers and successful. The Committee has borne in mind the summaries of reports widely available by various limited appeal the conventional consultation means: approach offers and is considering how best to reach out to a wider participatory audience. • by publicising the consultation process on the CitizenSpace pages of UKOnline; Briefings • copies of its publications are sent to all main libraries; During the period covered by this report members of • consultations are publicised by a press release; the Committee received an oral presentation from and Professor Sir Colin Campbell, the Judicial • documents are always available free of charge Appointments Commissioner. on the Committee’s website from the moment of publication, in a range of formats.

The Committee has also developed a structured approach to its studies by:

• holding informal meetings with practitioners and experts; • holding formal hearings, open to the public and the media, at which issues are explored in detail; • targeting of relevant newspapers and magazines to reach interest groups; and • participating in joint seminars with other bodies, such as the Public Administration Select Committee, Office of the Civil Service Commissioners, Constitution Unit and the FDA.

32 Appendix 3

Events and speaking engagements

DateOrganisation Subject Matter Attended by

17 February 2003 The Department for The Seven Principles of Sir Nigel Wicks Politics and International Public Life. Relations, Oxford

13 March 2003 Speech to Transparency 'Standards of Conduct in Sir Nigel Wicks International (UK) the House of Commons'

2 July 2003 The University of 'Standards of Conduct, Sir Nigel Wicks Portsmouth Trust and the Constitution',

29 October 2003 PASC/Constitution Unit ‘Reforming the Civil Sir Nigel Wicks UCL/FDA Service while (Half-day conference) safeguarding its values’.

18 November 2003 Public Administration Evidence on ‘A Civil Sir Nigel Wicks and Select Committee Service Act’ Robert Behrens

International relations

Since the Committee was established it has gained a reputation as a leading international authority on ethical matters. The Chair and senior members of the Secretariat receive many visitors from around the world.

Overseas visits and speeches

Date and locationOrganisation Subject Matter Attended by

23 November 2002, Council of Europe anti- Combating corruption in Trudy Payne Paphos, Cyprus corruption monitoring the public sector body (GRECO)

25 November 2002, European Commission for Standards in Public Life Lord MacGregor Trieste, Italy Democracy through Law (The Venice Commission)

33 Annual Report 2003

Overseas visitors received by the Chairman and Secretariat

Date Visiting party Hosted by

12 November 2002 Group of Commonwealth officials in the UK under the Trudy Payne auspices of Public Administration International on a study programme on Trust in Government

11 December 2002 Lithuanian officials and prosecutors participating in a Trudy Payne and National Anti-Corruption Programme in conjunction Stephen Barnes with Teesside University

14 January 2003 Hungarian MPs participating in British Association for Fiona Dick Central and Eastern Europe Programme ‘Seminar for Hungary: Standards in Public Life’

4 February 2003 Romanian officials and prosecutors taking part in Trudy Payne and seminar on fighting corruption organised by British Stephen Barnes Association for Central and Eastern Europe

28 March 2003 Delegation from the University of Fort Hare, South Robert Behrens Africa

7 May 2003 Bulgarian officials taking part in seminar on fighting Trudy Payne and corruption organised by British Association for Central Stephen Barnes and Eastern Europe

21 July 2003 Bulgarian Interior Ministry officials and Deputy Interior Trudy Payne and Minister – workshop on promoting ethical standards as Stephen Barnes the opening session of a Home Office run pre-accession project.

1 August 2003 Delegation of Korean officials on study visit organised Trudy Payne and by the Civil Service College on Public Administration Stephen Barnes Reform.

9 September 2003 The Japanese House of Councillors Robert Behrens

22 October 2003 Visit by Mrs Joan Sheldon MP, Deputy Chair Members’ Robert Behrens Ethics and Parliamentary Privileges Committee. (Parliament of Queensland)

4 November 2003 Hong Kong Anti-Corruption Commissioner and Sir Nigel Wicks and colleagues Robert Behrens

12 November 2003 Group of Commonwealth officials in the UK under the Richard Jarvis auspices of Public Administration International on a study programme on Trust in Government

1 December 2003 Delegation of Ghanaian MPs Robert Behrens

34 Appendix 3

World Wide Web In the period of this report, over 14,000 copies of the Committee’s publications were downloaded from the In an effort to make its reports and information as website alone. accessible as possible to the public at large, the Committee launched its website in July 1996. It can The average daily visitor number is nearly 450 – most be accessed at: are regular visitors and many visit the site more than www.public-standards.gov.uk once each day.

The Committee sees the website as an important tool In addition to UK visitors, the Committee’s website is in the dissemination of information and in facilitating accessed by individuals and organisations from interaction with its stakeholders on matters of interest across the world. relating to its role. The site contains up-to-date information about the As part of the Committee’s commitment to open Committee, press releases, links to its reports, government and freedom of information, the website summaries of meetings and to other ethics and plays a key role in making information and standards-related sites. Improvements are continually publications available to the public. Publishing being made to the site and these will continue during material on the Internet has several advantages for the course of the coming year. Following the redesign the Committee, including: of the site, the Committee would welcome any comments about the design and management. • more enquiries can be satisfied by access to the website; and • there is less need to spend time locating and posting publications, now that Internet use is widespread especially in business, government, and education.

35 Annual Report 2003

APPENDIX 4

FINANCIAL REVIEW

Budgetary Information the Cabinet Office Finance Manual, or the laws and regulations within which the Cabinet Office As an advisory Non-Departmental Public Body operates; and (NDPB), the Committee receives its delegated budget • all those in the team who manage resources are from the Cabinet Office. The Cabinet Office aware of their responsibilities, have clear, written Accounting Officer has personal responsibility for the delegations of authority, and have the necessary regularity and propriety of the Cabinet Office Vote. knowledge and skills to carry out their However, the responsibility for certain levels of responsibilities. authorisation, methods of control and day-to-day mechanisms have been delegated to Heads of Management Units (HMUs), effectively to the The HMU is required to provide an assurance Secretary to the Committee. He is free to manage the statement to the Accounting Officer stating that there allocation as he thinks best, to deliver the objectives is an effective system of internal control operating agreed with the Cabinet Office and reproduced later within the management unit during the whole of the in the Appendix. relevant period. In the Cabinet Office, the requirement is to provide two statements each year. The HMU is responsible for setting out clearly the outputs and outcomes, which the Committee plans to Payment Performance deliver with the resources for which he has delegated authority, and for reporting regularly on resource The Committee is committed to complying with HM usage and success in delivering those plans. In Treasury’s guidance on measuring and targeting of particular, he must ensure that the Cabinet Office performance in the paying of invoices. The Resource Accounting System (CORAS) holds accurate Committee’s policy is to pay bills in accordance with forecasts of the planned expenditure and accurate the terms of the relevant contract or within 30 days records of the profiled delegated budgets and actual of receipt of a valid invoice. The 30 days are expenditure. measured from the date at which the invoice was received into the office. The HMU is also responsible for maintaining a sound system of internal control over the resources for In 2002-03, the Committee settled 100 per cent of which he has delegated authority, and for providing all suppliers’ invoices within the specified time. the Accounting Officer with assurances that those controls are effective. This means that the HMU must ensure that:

• value for money in delivering planned outputs and outcomes is demonstrated; • risks to the successful delivery of the plans, or to the management of resources according to the required standards of regularity and propriety, are identified and managed; • departmental requirements, and any additional requirements which may apply — including both financial and non-financial (e.g. health & safety, security) requirements, are met; • assets are safeguarded; • Cabinet Office Financial Management Division are notified of all losses, special payments, loans or gifts. Irregularities include frauds, or breaches of the provisions of Government Accounting or

36 Appendix 4

Table 1: Expenditure and Cash Plans covering the period of this report

2002-03 2003-0495 Total Allocation 542,000 520,000 Staff costs 365,440 237,230 Other running costs 273,075 282,770 Total running costs 638,451 520,000 Capital – – Total Gross Expenditure 638,451 520,000 Receipts –96 -96 Total Net Expenditure 638,451 520,000 Outturn +/- 96,45197 –

Table 2: Prompt Payment Statistics Annual Performance

Total number Total not paid Total number % paid of invoices on time of invoices on time paid on time 2003-0498 63 0 63 100%

2002-03 209 0 209 100%

2001-02 196 0 196 100%

2000-01 239 0 239 100%

1999-00 226 1 225 99.56%

1998-99 266 9 257 96.62%

95 Financial year ends 31 March 2004. These figures are therefore provisional but at this point in time we forecast the Committee’s outturn to be within budget allocation. 96 Under Resource Accounting and Budgeting, the Cabinet Office accounts for any receipts centrally. 97 The budget was agreed with the Cabinet Office before the Committee agreed to launch an unprecedented programme of two inquiries (Eighth and Ninth Reports), running in tandem with each other, with sequential public hearings. 98 From April to December 2003. 37 Annual Report 2003

Progress against objectives for 2002-03

Objective 1 To reinforce public confidence in standards of conduct by carrying out an effective programme of work on behalf of the Committee

Performance Indicators 1. To ensure the accurate identification of current concerns about standards of conduct by carrying out an ongoing programme of research into public attitudes so that:

(i) by the end of September 2002, the Committee has published its preliminary findings; and

(ii) by the end of December 2002, further research has been commissioned to test those findings nationally.

2. To address current concerns about standards of conduct in public life by:

(i) considering the priority areas for attention arising from the September 2001 review of the outcome of all the Committee’s recommendations; and

(ii) monitoring new and emerging issues of concern about standards of conduct in public life; and publishing the Committee’s Eighth Report by autumn 2002.

Commentary 1. Stage 1 of the research, launched in the autumn of 2001, provided the preliminary groundwork which would help ensure that the Committee asked the right questions in this next phase. The National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) completed this work and their findings were published on 10 January 2003.

Following a tendering process, a research contract looking at the public’s perceptions of the standards of conduct required by those in public life was awarded to BMRB Social Research on 15 April 2003.

2. In early 2002, the Committee launched an unprecedented programme of two inquiries, running in tandem with each other, with sequential public hearings. The Eighth Report on standards of conduct in the House of Commons was published on 21 November 2003. The Ninth Report on Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service, was published on 8 April 2003.

38 Appendix 4

Objective 2 To enhance visibility and authority of the Committee by diversifying and extending the external communication strategy

Performance Indicators 1. To account for the work of the Committee by publishing an annual report.

2. To draw minority groups further into the consultation process by ensuring accessibility in all our activities, including the web and publications.

3. To ensure public and stakeholder recognition of the Committee’s work by establishing an effective corporate identity in all our published material.

4. To reinforce the Committee’s position as a leading international authority on standards in public life by holding our first conference, on the Seven Principles of Public Life.

Commentary 1. The 2001-02 Annual Report was published on 21 November 2002.

2. The Committee made its consultation papers and summaries of reports widely available. Better targeting of relevant newspapers and magazines to reach interest groups was achieved. Improvements to navigation and content of the Committee’s website were made.

3. All the Committee’s publications during 2002 received a new look to improve layout and design and to establish an effective corporate image.

4. As the Committee were involved in two major inquiries it was not possible to organise a conference on standards in public life.

39 Annual Report 2003

Progress against objectives for 2003-04

Objective 1 To reinforce public confidence in standards of conduct by carrying out an effective programme of work on behalf of the Committee

Performance Indicators 1. To ensure the accurate identification of current concerns about standards of conduct by carrying out an ongoing programme of research into public attitudes so that:

(i) by the end of June 2003, cognitive testing of questionnaires will be completed;

(ii) by September 2003, the final questionnaire will have been produced;

(iii) by February 2004 the main stage fieldwork will have been completed; and

(iv) the final report will be published in 2004.

2. To address current concerns about standards of conduct in public life by:

(i) considering the priority areas for attention arising from the September 2001 review of the outcome of all the Committee’s recommendations; and

(ii) monitoring new and emerging issues of concern about standards of conduct in public life; and publishing the Committee’s Tenth Report by early 2004.

Commentary 1. The aim of Stage 2 will be to develop and test a set of core questions, which would reflect attitudes to the principles themselves, not reactions to specific current events. This is preparatory work for the representative national sample.

The Committee approved the draft questionnaire for cognitive testing and piloting at the June 2003 meeting. Second stage piloting has been completed and the Committee approved the final version of the questionnaire on 16 October. Fieldwork began in November. It is hoped that this fieldwork will be completed in February 2004 and the data analysed and published later in the year.

2. The Committee published “Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life”, an Issues and Questions consultation paper, on 15 January 2004. The Tenth Inquiry will look at the proportionality and impact of procedures introduced to complement various Committee recommendations in public bodies, local government and the National Health Service.

40 Appendix 4

Objective 2 To enhance visibility and authority of the Committee by diversifying and extending the external communication strategy

Performance Indicators 1. To account for the work of the Committee by publishing an annual report.

2. To draw minority groups further into the consultation process by ensuring accessibility in all our activities, including the web and publications.

3. To ensure public and stakeholder recognition of the Committee’s work by establishing an effective corporate identity in all our published material.

4. To reinforce the Committee’s position as a leading international authority on standards in public life by holding our first conference, on the Seven Principles of Public Life.

Commentary 1. The 2003 Annual Report was published in February 2004. 2. Ongoing. 3. Ongoing. 4. Linked with launch of final report on research to be published later in the year.

41 Annual Report 2003

APPENDIX 5

STANDARDS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC

A standard for public enquiries our response is both accurate and appropriate. This service standard applies to all forms of correspondence including emails and faxes. As well as responses to the consultation paper on the • If we cannot give you a full response within 15 Tenth Inquiry “Getting the Balance Right: days, we will contact you and let you know the Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life”, reasons why this is not possible and indicate the Committee receives correspondence on a range of when we expect to be in a position to give you a issues from Members of Parliament, Members of the full response. We will also let you have the name House of Lords, academics, other organisations, and and contact number of the person dealing with the general public. your query. • If you contact us centrally by email we will We are publicly committed to achieving and initially acknowledge receipt of your enquiry. maintaining target levels in 2003-04, of 92% of public While we recognise that email offers great correspondence (letters, faxes and emails) responded advantages in terms of speed, many of the to within 15 working days, rising to 95% in 2004-05. queries we receive can be complex, requiring Upward review of the target will then be possible in careful consideration and advice from a number subsequent years. of sources. We will respond fully within the published service standard for other In 2002-03, we responded to 95% of correspondence correspondence. within 15 working days, against the target level of • We will monitor our performance against this 91%. service standard and publish the results. We aim to provide an efficient and effective service for our correspondents. Most of the queries we A standard for telephone calls receive can be dealt with promptly, either by sending one of our publications, a simple letter or perhaps • If you ring us we will answer your call promptly, through a telephone call. Occasionally the issues courteously and helpfully. If the person you wish raised require more detailed consideration. Whatever to speak to is not available, we will take a the reason for contacting us we will respond in message and arrange for your call to be returned accordance with the commitments set out below. by them or another suitable person. • We will assess our performance against this • If you write to us we will endeavour to give you standard and ensure that action is taken to a full and clear response within 15 working days improve standards where this is found to be from receipt of your letter. We will ensure that necessary.

Table 3: Replies to Correspondence: Performance Report 2000-0199 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04100 Total number of letters received 223 351 233 157 Total requiring substantive reply 118 199 108 89 Total replied to within 15 day deadline 112 198 103 80 Replied to in more than 15 day deadline 6 1 5 9 Percentage replied to within 15 days 95% 99% 95% 90%

99 Formal records were not kept before September 2000. 100 From April to December 2003. 42 Appendix 5

An information standard What to do if you have a complaint

We will provide clear and straightforward information Formal complaints about the working of the about our services to our customers. This will be Committee or Secretariat should be addressed in the available on request including through our helpline first instance in writing to: The Secretary, Committee and on our website where you will also find our on Standards in Public Life, 35 Great Smith Street, central email addresses. London SW1P 3BQ.

The Committee also maintains a public enquiry line If you remain unhappy with the Committee’s actions, on Freefone: 0800 692 1516, available 24hrs a day, you may ask a Member of Parliament to request that for ordering copies of its free publications. the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) investigate your Putting things right complaint and how it has been handled. If the Ombudsman is satisfied that your complaint has been A complaint is any written or spoken expression of dealt with fairly, she will close your case. dissatisfaction with the service that we provide. We aim to ensure that we: Details of how to do this may be obtained from:

• treat complaints seriously and deal with them The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for properly; Administration • resolve complaints promptly and informally Millbank Tower whenever possible; and Millbank • learn from complaints and take action to improve London SW1P 4PU our service. Helpline: 020 7217 4163 Fax: 020 7217 4160 Email: [email protected] Website: www.ombudsman.org.uk

43 Annual Report 2003

APPENDIX 6

PROFILE OF THE SECRETARIAT

The Committee is served by a Secretariat of Civil Servants seconded or on loan from the Cabinet Office and other government departments.

Current members

Robert Behrens Secretary and Press Secretary

Dr Richard Vicky Williams Jarvis PA to Sir Nigel Assistant Wicks and Secretary Robert Behrens

Andrew Stephen Barnes Brewster Secretariat Secretariat Co-ordinator Manager

In line with good practice, the Secretariat adopted a Other assistance to the Committee People Plan towards the end of 2003. This sets out our objectives for recruitment, appraisal, staff development Following the Committee’s decision to hold formal and employment equity. Members of the Secretariat hearings open to the public and the press, the attended several courses throughout the duration of Committee contracted the services, until 2004, of this report to support the Committee in its work. Radio Technical Services Ltd (RTS Ltd) for the provision of public address system, sound feeds and The following have left the Secretariat during the sound recording as well as providing press conference course of this report: Sarah Tyerman (Secretary) (to services; and WordWave for the provision of 6 December 2002), Trudy Payne (Assistant Secretary) transcription services during public hearings. Editing (to 30 September 2003), Vivien Brighton (Assistant and proof-reading of the Eighth and Ninth Reports Secretary) (to 30 April 2003), Colin O’Donoghue and Tenth Report Issues and Questions paper was (Assistant Secretary) (to 31 March 2003), Steve Pares carried out by Giles Emerson of Words. (to 31 August 2003) and Fiona Dick (Press Secretary) (to 31 January 2003).

44 Appendix 7

APPENDIX 7

PUBLICATION SCHEME

The Freedom of Information Act received Royal Assent The Scheme on 30 November 2000. The Act establishes a right of access to information held by public authorities and Introduction imposes obligations on public authorities to disclose information, subject to a range of exemptions. The Committee’s responsibilities The Committee on Standards in Public Life was On 13 November 2001, the Lord Chancellor established, under the chairmanship of the Rt Hon announced in the House of Lords that the Act would The Lord Nolan, by the then Prime Minister, the Rt be implemented in stages, and implemented in full by Hon John Major, in October 1994, with the following January 2005. This involves implementation of the Act terms of reference: through the rolling out of publication schemes under section 19 of the Act by type of authority, starting with “To examine current concerns about standards of central government in November 2002, and the conduct of all holders of public office, including bringing into force of the individual right of access arrangements relating to financial and commercial provisions in January 2005. activities, and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be A copy of the Act, plus explanatory material, can be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety found at www.hmso.gov.uk/acts.htm. in public life.”

Until the Act is fully in force the Committee will The term “holders of public office“ includes: respond to requests for information in accordance Ministers, civil servants and advisers; Members of with the Code of Practice of Access to Government Parliament and UK Members of the European Information, Second Edition (1997). A copy of the Parliament; members and senior officers of all NDPBs Code of Practice is available free of charge from: and of NHS bodies; non-Ministerial office-holders; members and other senior officers of other bodies Department for Constitutional Affairs discharging publicly-funded functions; and elected Information Rights Division members and senior officers of local authorities. 4th Floor MWB Business Exchange On 12 November 1997 the Prime Minister 10 Greycoat Place announced additional terms of reference: LONDON SW1P 1SB www.dca.gov.uk “To review issues in relation to the funding of political parties, and to make recommendations as to any Under section 19 of the Act the Committee is changes in present arrangements.” required to adopt and maintain a publication scheme specifying the classes of information it publishes or Status intends to publish; the manner in which each class is, The Committee is an independent advisory Non- or will be, published; and whether the information is Departmental Public Body (NDPB). Its members are intended to be available free of charge. In this context appointed by the Prime Minister for renewable “publication“ means to make publicly available. periods of up to three years. It is not founded in statute and has no legal powers, either to compel The Committee’s scheme received the formal approval witnesses to provide evidence or to enforce its of the Information Commissioner too late for inclusion recommendations. In particular it has no powers to in the 2001-02 Annual Report. It is published on our investigate individual allegations of misconduct. website and copies are available from the Secretariat.

45 Annual Report 2003

Method of working publication scheme. This scheme will provide the Since its creation the Committee has produced nine public with a guide to the information a public major studies. It established its method of working authority publishes or intends to release as a matter of early on: course, how and when it will do so, and whether this • publishing a consultation paper setting out the information will be free of charge or on payment. issues and questions it believes are of specific importance; In this context ‘publication’ does not refer solely to • inviting written submissions based on the issues printed material. Publication has been interpreted as and questions paper; widely as possible to include the website, one-off • informal meetings with practitioners and experts; printed documents from a desktop PC, electronic • formal hearings, open to the public and media, documents, printed books, reports and CD-Roms. at which the issues are explored in detail; and • publication of a report containing conclusions Implementing the legislation and recommendations, together with a complete The Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 2000 received record of written and oral evidence. Royal Assent on 30 November 2000. When fully implemented, the Act will supersede the current Code Policy on openness of Practice on Access to Government Information 1997. As an integral part of its first report the Committee defined and endorsed the Seven Principles of Public The Lord Chancellor’s Department has lead Life, which have since been adopted widely – either responsibility for the Act and announced the in response to specific recommendations from this implementation timetable in November 2001. This Committee or as a matter of best practice. Several of said that all central government departments and these principles, which have of course been Non-Departmental Public Bodies, including this incorporated into the Committee’s own Code of Committee, should bring their publication scheme into Practice, are directly relevant to Freedom of effect by November 2002. However the individual Information policy (Leadership, Openness and right of access to information does not come in until Accountability). The Committee takes its public January 2005. Until that time the Committee on responsibilities extremely seriously, and throughout its Standards in Public Life will continue to follow existence has sought to implement its Principles both existing policy on Open Government according to the in fact and in spirit. The Committee has always been arrangements in the current Code of Practice. as open as possible with its own information. It welcomes the move towards a wider culture of Responsibility for overseeing the operation of the Act openness which the provision of publication schemes rests with the Information Commissioner, an across all public bodies will encourage. independent public official responsible directly to Parliament. More information on the Commissioner’s Funding and administration role can be found on their website, The Committee is an independent advisory body www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk. which presents its recommendations direct to the Prime Minister. It receives its budget through the Right to information Cabinet Office, but day-to-day responsibility for When the individual right of access to information is financial controls and budgetary mechanisms are implemented it will apply to all types of recorded delegated to the Secretary of the Committee. The information held by public authorities, regardless of Secretary and the rest of the team which make up the the date of the information. The Act does, however, Secretariat (currently five staff) are permanent civil set out some exemptions to this right. Our aim is to servants employed by the Cabinet Office. make available all information which is not subject to one of these exemptions. For this reason, some of the material which other public authorities are likely to include in their However in some cases you will find documents publication schemes on management and staffing made available under our publication scheme will issues may be found in the main Cabinet Office have gaps in the text. This is because the information publication scheme: http://www.cabinet- within them falls within an exemption. Where this is office.gov.uk/publicationscheme/index.asp the case the document will be clearly marked to show where information has been removed and details What is a publication scheme? given of the relevant exemption.

Definition If you wish to challenge the claim to an exemption Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, every you can pursue the matter through our complaints public authority is required to adopt and maintain a procedure.

46 Appendix 7

Copyright How long will it take? Reproduction of material on this site for sale or other Where the information you want is already available, commercial purposes is not permitted. For any other for example, where it is listed in the publication use, or if in doubt, further information and guidance scheme, we aim to provide it within five working notes on publishing and copyright are available from days. There will be some cases where it takes a little HMSO's Licensing Division (Tel: 01603 621000). longer. In such cases we follow the target currently in the Code of Practice to supply the information you How the scheme works want in 15 working days. If this is not possible we will write to you to inform you of when you can Who looks after the scheme? expect a full answer. The Secretary of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has overall responsibility for the How do I complain? Committee‘s publication scheme. The scheme is You may wish to challenge a decision we have made maintained on a day-to-day basis by the Secretariat about claiming an exemption for certain information Manager, Andrew Brewster: Their contact details are you have requested, or feel that we have taken an in the Contact Us section of our website. unreasonable amount of time to deal with your request or that charges we have assessed are How do I request information? unjustified. If so, you should put your complaint in Much of the information included in the scheme will writing to: The Secretary, Committee on Standards in in due course be available through hypertext links in Public Life, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P the website, which you can download. If documents 3BQ. cannot be accessed directly by this route, the scheme gives details of other available formats; where a If you remain unhappy with the Secretary‘s decision, charge applies this will be specified. you may ask a Member of Parliament to request that the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for To request material or information from the Administration (the Ombudsman) investigate your Committee on Standards in Public Life, either: complaint and how it has been handled. Details of how to do this may be obtained from: telephone 0800 692 1516; or email [email protected] or The Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for write to Secretariat Information Desk, Administration Committee on Standards in Millbank Tower Public Life, Millbank 35 Great Smith Street, London London SW1P 3BQ SW1P 4PU Helpline: 020 7217 4163 If having searched the scheme you cannot find what Fax: 020 7217 4160 you are looking for, you can make a request for Email: [email protected] information under the Code of Practice. Applications Website: www.ombudsman.org.uk under the Code should be put in writing and should provide as much detail as possible to identify the What the scheme covers information sought. You should include details of how you would like the information sent to you (e.g. hard Contents copy or email or disc), and specify that you are Our publication scheme has been compiled to reflect requesting information under the Code of Practice on the various work activities undertaken by the Access to Government Information. Committee. The scheme covers a broad range of classes of information. We have followed the What will it cost? guidance of the Information Commissioner in Our aim is to make as much as possible available to selecting the information we include, though much you free of charge, although we may charge for was already available. Most of the new material multiple copies or where a response takes a very covers the day-to-day running of the Committee. considerable amount of time to prepare. If your request is likely to cost more than £100, we will To help you identify specific document types there is charge for that work. If your request does attract any a breakdown summarising the classes of information charges we will ask whether you wish to continue to be found under each topic heading. This with the request before we undertake the work. information will also be available in Site Map format.

47 Annual Report 2003

Exempt Material Other activities Within each class of information you will be able to Information about events attended by the Chairman, see what material is available, how it can be accessed Committee and Secretariat members, and media and whether any material within that class is likely to activity: be covered by exemptions. We have constructed our • speeches, conferences and lectures; publication scheme to ensure that exemptions are • overseas visits and visitors from overseas; applied as rarely as possible. • press releases; and • articles and transcripts. Classes: Organisation and management The Committee Information about the day-to-day management of the Information covering the structure of the Committee Committee and Secretariat‘s work: and the rules they work to: • annual reports; • membership (biographical details of members • quinquennial review; and former members, photograph of current • expenditure and cash plans; Committee); • diversity statement for staff; • remuneration rules and rates; • internal operating guidance notes; • Code of Practice; • organisational structure; and • Register of Interests; • contact points. • recruitment (details and links if the Committee is advertising for new members); Other sources • agendas of Committee meetings; and Links to other sources of information about the work • summaries of Committee discussions from of the Committee, and standards issues elsewhere in November 2002. the public sector: • Parliamentary Questions; Inquiries • related organisations (e.g. Electoral Commission, Information tracking the progress of inquiries from first Standards Board, OCPA); stages of consultation to publication of • other Codes of Practice; and recommendations: • other sites covering standards issues. • consultation documents; • inquiry procedures, including arrangements for media coverage; • written and oral evidence; • final reports with conclusions and recommendations; and • responses from other public bodies.

Research and special studies Information about other Committee work: • Fourth Report; • Stock-take of past recommendations; • Misuse of public office – a new offence? • Personal Liability: a legal research study; • Comparative study of Regulation of MPs; • research into public attitudes; and • The Research Advisory Board (membership, contracts information, agendas & meeting summaries).

48 Appendix 8

APPENDIX 8

REPORTS AND PUBLICATIONS

Title ISBN Command Paper No Price

First Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, May 1995 Volume 1: Report 0-10-1265027 Cm 2850-I £11.80 Volume 2: Transcripts of Oral Evidence 0-10-1285035 Cm 2850-II £38.00 Summary of the Committee‘s First Report Free of charge

Second Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, May 1996 Local public spending bodies Volume 1: Report 0-10-1327021 Cm 3270-I £14.00 Volume 2: Transcripts of Oral Evidence 0-10-132703X Cm 3270-II £34.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Second Report Free of charge

Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, July 1997 Standards of conduct in Local Government in England, Scotland and Wales Volume 1: Report 0-10-137022-9 Cm 3702-I £12.80 Volume 2: Transcripts of Oral Evidence 0-10-137023-7 Cm 3702-II £34.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Third Report Free of charge

Misuse of Public Office. A new offence? (Consultation paper) Free of charge

Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 1997 Review of Standards of conduct in executive NDPB‘s, NHS Trusts and local public spending bodies Free of charge

Personal Liability in Public Service Organisations: A legal research study, June 1998 0-11-4301050-6 £19.90

Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, October 1998 The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom Volume 1: Report 0-10-140572-3 £19.70 Volume 2: Evidence (including CD-ROM) 0-10-140573-1 Cm 4057-II £68.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Fifth Report Free of charge

Annual Reports 1994-98 Free of charge

Sixth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, January 2000: Reinforcing Standards Volume 1: Report 0-10-145572-0 Cm 4557-I £17.00 Volume 2: Evidence (including CD-ROM) 0-10-145573-9 Cm 4557-II £46.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Sixth Report 0-10-145573-9 Free of charge

49 Annual Report 2003

Title ISBN Command Paper No Price

Annual Report 1999-2000 Free of charge

Seventh Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 2001: Standards of Conduct in the House of Lords Volume 1: Report 0-10-149032-1 Cm 4903-I £11.00 Volume 2: Evidence (including CD-ROM) 0-10-149033-X Cm 4903-II £30.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Seventh Report Free of charge

Annual Report 2000-2001 Free of charge

The First Seven Reports – A Review of Progress, September 2002 Free of charge

The Regulation of Parliamentary Standards: A Comparative Perspective, Research Paper, May 2002 Free of charge

Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, November 2002: Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons Report (including CD-ROM containing written and oral evidence) 0-10-156632-8 Cm 5663 £23.80 Summary of the Committee‘s Eighth Report Free of charge

Annual Report 2001 – 2002 Free of charge

Ninth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, April 2003: Defining the Boundaries within the Executive: Ministers, Special Advisers and the permanent Civil Service Report (including CD-ROM containing written and oral evidence) 0-10-157752-4 Cm 5775 £21.00 Summary of the Committee‘s Ninth Report Free of charge

Getting the Balance Right: Implementing Standards of Conduct in Public Life, January 2004. Issues and Questions Consultation Paper Free of charge

50 Appendix 8

Obtaining Committee publications Contacting the Committee

If you have access to the World Wide Web most of The contact details of the Committee are: the publications referred to in this report are Committee on Standards in Public Life available on the Committee‘s website at: 35 Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BQ www.public-standards.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)20 7276 2595 Copies of summaries of the Committee‘s reports and Fax: +44 (0)20 7276 2594 other free of charge publications can also be ordered Email: [email protected] by telephone from the Committee‘s enquiry line Website: www.public-standards.gov.uk Freefone: 0800 692 1516. Copies are sent to main public libraries.

Other Committee publications may be ordered from: TSO (The Stationery Office) PO Box 29, Norwich, NR3 1GN

Telephone orders/general enquiries: 0870 600 5522

Order through the Parliamentary Hotline: Lo-call 0845 7 023474

Fax orders: 0870 600 5533

Email: [email protected]

Textphone: 0870 240 3701

51 Annual Report 2003

52 Design and typesetting by Column Communications Photography by Anne Purkiss The Committee on Standards in Public Life 35 Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BQ

Tel: 020 7276 2595 Fax: 020 7276 2585

Internet: www.public-standards.gov.uk Email: [email protected]

February 2004