Committee on Standards in Public Life

Constant standards in a changing world?

Notes for Remarks to Centre for British Government Studies, University of Leeds, 28 November 2001

I shall range widely in my remarks today.

But it would be best if I began with some explanation of the work of my Committee, the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

A brief history of the Committee

I am not going to rehearse the political history of the early nineteen nineties. But you will recall the stories of sleaze and abuse of procedures, cash for questions, party political appointments to public bodies and so on.

In short, there was growing public concern about standards of conduct of holders of public office.

To respond to this concern the Prime Minister, John Major, established the Committee in 1994. Its original terms of reference remain unchanged to the present day.

Since 1994 in response to public concerns, the Committee has examined, in seven reports, virtually every institution of British public life. It has made recommendations covering a wide range of institutions with the objective of ensuring the highest standards of propriety, such as:

• House of Commons and House of Lords
• Ministers and the Civil Service
• Local Government,
• Non-Departmental Public Bodies,
• NHS Trusts and local public spending bodies

The stock take of the Committee’s work to date

When I first took up this post, I put in hand a review of those seven reports. As a result the Committee has published a stock take of all 308 recommendations and 26 observations which it has made. Its objectives were:

• To examine the actual results derived from the recommendations
• To judge whether there are any gaps; and
• To consider whether further recommendations are appropriate.

By a stock take I mean recording the response made to each recommendation and the action subsequently taken.

The stock take document makes no assessment of the material at this stage. But we intend to use it to review implementation, delivery and outcomes for the issues that fall within the Committee’s Terms of Reference.

We have some work ahead of us to make the most effective use of the material it contains.

Most of the Committee’s recommendations have been implemented

But it does show that most of the Committee’s recommendations have, over the years, been implemented. As a result of the Committee’s work, virtually every aspect of our public life has new arrangements seeking to safeguard standards of conduct. These include:

• Electoral Commission
• Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
• Commissioner for Public Appointments
• Codes of Conduct for MPs, Lords, Civil Servants and Special Advisers
• Standards bodies for local government in England, Scotland and Wales

So that is where the Committee has come from, what it is has done and what are its current activities.

A peculiarly British institution

If you reflect on the status of the Committee, it is readily apparent that in constitutional terms, it is a most unusual creature.

This was brought home to me when I was with Dr Jeff Gleisner, giving a lecture in Moscow at the Higher School of Economics, and I was asked by one of the students, ‘How does the Committee of Standards in Public Life fit into the British constitution?’

I guess the student expected an answer on the lines that we were established as a commission under chapter 22 of the constitution, section 3, paragraph 2b!

Alas, the bemused student received a somewhat baffling answer that:

• The Committee was established by the then Prime Minister simply by way of an announcement to Parliament;
• It has no statutory powers or sanctions;
• It is totally independent of all organs of government;
• It is party politically neutral, though three of its members are appointed by the three largest parties in the House of Commons; and
• It is free to propose topics for its work programme, which is established after consultation between the Committee and the Government.

In short, the Committee is a peculiarly British institution.

Yet despite its lack of powers, its informality and its lack of a statutory basis, the Committee makes recommendations which affect the central institutions of state, such as the House of Commons and the House of Lords as well as the local Parish Council and the Governing bodies of universities.

Of course, not all of the Committee’s recommendations have been taken up, for example:

• House of Commons should take measures in relation to the Committee on Standards and Privileges with a view to ensuring that a substantial proportion of its members are senior MPs
• A timetable for the implementation of the Government’s commitment to a Civil Service Act
• A debate in both Houses on a limit on the total number of special advisers that can be appointed with Government

But most recommendations have been accepted.

The basis for the Committee’s achievements

Why then has the Committee been able to achieve what it has? I believe that there are five reasons.

First, the Committee established the Seven Principles of Public Life. These Principles have provided it with a powerful tool in its work to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life. And I will say more about the Seven Principles in a moment.

Next, the Committee has over the years, devised a deliberative method of working which has given credibility and influence to its work. The Committee’s standard practice is to publish an ‘Issues and Questions Paper’, which poses the most important questions; it then takes evidence in public from a wide body of opinion; and then it publishes a considered and thorough report.

The third reason is the support that the Committee has received from the Press. One of our senior editors once remarked to the Committee:

‘we are an imperfect lot in a very imperfect world... but the press has the duty to monitor the workings of government and the workings of the legislature on behalf of the people... that is what we are there for.’

Of course, the press can get it wrong, they can be unfair and irresponsible. But a vibrant press is one of the guarantors of proper standards in public life.

The fourth reason is the wish from the overwhelming majority of public officials to uphold the highest standards of conduct in their institutions. By and large I believe that we do have high standards of conduct. Probity is one of this country’s strengths, but it cannot be taken for granted.

The fifth reason why I believe that the Committee’s work has enjoyed support is the British people themselves demand and expect high standards from their public officials. One of our leading newspapers remarked in an editorial earlier this year:

‘The country expects its government to be whiter than white.’

I will say something about the people’s attitudes to standards in a moment too.

Constitutional issues are back on the agenda of domestic political debate

But before I do, I want to come back to the question that the student in the Higher School of Economics put to me about the British constitution.

Because it has some relevance to the state of political discussion in Britain today.

Constitutional issues were at the very centre of British domestic political debate until shortly after the First World War with the emancipation of women. Then for the next sixty or seventy years, the state of the economy and the issues of nationalisation and denationalisation dominated the domestic political debate.

Today constitutional issues are back on the agenda of domestic political debate.

Maybe one day that young student in Moscow will read in our newspapers that there is serious debate in Britain about the adoption of codified, written constitution of the sort that citizens in most countries throughout the world are familiar.

But not for a while, I would judge.

Meanwhile, suffice it to say that the debate about standards of conduct in public life is a micro-aspect of the constitutional debate.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

I referred a moment ago to the Committee’s Seven Principles of Public Life, which the Committee set out in its first report in 1995.

The Seven Principles have provided the Committee with a sort of template and in its seven reports the Committee has systematically applied those principles to virtually all the institutions of state.

The Seven Principles of Public Life have come to be a beacon that illuminates virtually every document produced by public institutions on standards of propriety in public life.

Every one active in public life now and in the future is in the debt of Lord Nolan’s original Committee for these Seven Principles – a sort of seven commandments for public office holders.

The importance of institutions

My reference to public office holders prompts me to make a fundamental observation about the work of my Committee, and again it stems from our terms of reference.

The terms of reference direct the Committee’s attention to holders of public office. Everyone with a role of responsibility in a public institution has a personal responsibility for upholding the Seven Principles of Public Life.

But if you examine the Committee’s seven reports and 308 recommendations, they are almost all directed at institutions. That, I believe, underlines a factor of crucial importance.

Institutions must be responsive to the public concerns about standards of conduct. That requires, above all, Leadership from those at the top of the institution.

The Committee has made clear that leaders of institutions share a personal responsibility for upholding the Seven Principles of Public Life and for ensuring that that the arrangements are in place for monitoring and maintaining standards throughout the institution.

Indeed, this leadership role to uphold the Seven Principles is now explicitly recognised for Ministers in the Ministerial Code which states that Ministers are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life set out in the first report of the Nolan Committee.

Codes of Conduct

But it is not only Ministers who have a code. Codes of Conduct have become favoured instruments for guiding the conduct of holders of public office and for judging their conduct..

If you examine the Codes which have emerged from the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, it is possible to discern a sort of model with five features:

• Feature one: the Code should reflect, either explicitly or implicitly, the Seven Principles of Public Life;
• Feature two: The Code should be drawn up either by the institution itself or by the institution’s statutory authority;
• Feature three: The Code should reflect the particular needs and roles of the institution;
• Feature four: The operation of the Code should be monitored through some element of independent scrutiny; and
• Feature five: The Code should be supported by a systematic programme of training and education so that its underlying values and the expected behaviours enter into the culture of the institution.

We are all governed by codes today.

The Seven Principles and the higher education sector

Let me come down to the practicalities of implementation – to your world, the world of higher education and universities.

Because this provides an interesting case study on how the Committee’s recommendations are applied in practice.

Way back in 1996 the second report of the Committee looked at a range of public bodies and included a number of recommendations for the higher education sector.

The report’s conclusion was generally comforting.

But always, critical comment in a few cases had tarnished the reputation of the great majority. Even so, the general consensus was that ‘... standards of conduct in higher education... were generally very good.’

The Committee recommended that the framework of the Seven Principles should be adopted in the higher education sector. In response, the Committee of University Chairmen has fully incorporated them into their ‘Guide for Members of Governing Bodies’.

On the other hand, the Association of University Administrators has adopted a slightly different but equally valid approach in constructing a freestanding ‘Code of Professional Standards’. This takes the underpinning philosophy of the Seven Principles and tailors it specifically to their own working environment.

This is a good illustration of how my Committee’s work can be applied in practice. We do not provide a rulebook. We recognise that there are different ways of achieving the desired end result, namely the adherence of the highest standards of propriety in public life.

But we do expect each institution to build ethical standards into its corporate culture. Although our terms of reference only refer to ‘public office holders’, the principles will not have an impact unless everyone from board level down understands the framework of behaviours that is expected of them.

Is public opinion static ?

5I chose for my theme today the title, ‘Constant Standards in a Changing World?’ And I draw attention to the question mark, as this has become an increasingly important part of my thinking as I put this text together!

Certainly, it is a truism that the world is changing. But what about the public’s expectations of standards of conduct of public officials? Have they changed? Are they changing? Do the Seven Principles of Public Life set out the behaviours expected of public office holders?

I do not want to debate whether standards of conduct in public life are higher or lower today than they were forty or fifty years ago. I just do not have the evidence to come to a judgement either way.

But I will hazard the judgement that the people care more about standards than they did forty years ago. And by ‘care’, I mean that people have a greater expectation that standards are maintained than they did forty years ago. And by ‘expectation’ I mean that the people require public officials to follow high standards. There is, of course, another meaning of expect – that people believe that public officials will follow high standards. I will say more about this in a moment.

Not everyone will accept my assertion that people care more about standards nowadays.

Some will argue that the people’s real interest is in the level and quality of service delivered by the public sector and that public interest in standards matters is whipped up by an intensely competitive media through a steady breeze of lurid allegations of this or that public office holder’s sleazy behaviour.

I disagree. I believe that the people do care about standards in public life and are right to care.

It is vital to the health of our liberal democracy that public officials and the institutions in which they work command the trust of the people that they serve. The people’s perceptions of the maintenance of high standards of conduct are almost as important as the reality. If this confidence is eroded, the basic foundations of our political society will be weakened.

The Committee takes a pragmatic approach

Let me return again to the Committee’s terms of reference.

They are not written in high faluting, philosophical terms. The language is practical and pragmatic.

Sometimes the Committee on Standards in Public Life is termed ‘an ethics committee’. It is not a terminology I much like.

Our terms of reference do not call upon the Committee to recommend codes of ethics.

Instead, the Committee is enjoined to:

‘... make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements... to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life’.

Ethical standards cannot be differentiated

The presumption is that there are ethical standards and that what is needed are practical arrangements to make sure that they are reflected, and seen to be reflected, in public life.

My belief is that in a well functioning society, you cannot differentiate ethical standards between political life, business life or any other walk of life for that matter. Ethical standards are universal within any society.

Any society that seeks such differentiation will get itself into a muddle. The same basic ethical standards have to rule whatever the particular field of activity. To that extent, those ethical standards are universal within a society.

Ethical standards come from the people

I have deliberately used the word ‘society’, rather than ‘state’, to define the ambit for the universality of the ethical standards to which I have referred.

This is to underline my belief that ethical standards are founded in the beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of the citizens in our state. In short, ethical standards are people given, not state given.

The Committee’s survey of public attitudes

I have mentioned several times public concerns about standards of conduct of holders of public office. Indeed, my Committee’s terms of reference require us to examine ‘... current concerns about standards of conduct of all public office holders... ’

This immediately prompts the question, ‘How do you know what those concerns are?’

And this brings me to an important new programme of attitudinal research that the Committee has just launched.

Hitherto the Committee has sought to define the nature of the public concerns about standards of conduct on the basis of evidence taken during the preparation of its seven reports.

In fact, we know very little about the public’s attitude to these questions. So far as I am aware, little systematic research into standards of conduct has ever been conducted in Britain. So the evidential base for our work is somewhat second-hand, and we need to remedy this.

Our research project has two main aims:

• definition of key issues in public mind
• reaction to particular types of behaviour, through use of vignettes

This is an important piece of work for the Committee. But it is difficult and complex. We are determined that the research should be of first class quality and authority, and it will form an important addition to our evidential base.

We intend to repeat the research at suitable intervals to see whether public opinion is changing. This is not because we want to compare the performance of one government against another.

I suspect the research will show that the public are more concerned about the broader and subtler concerns than playing one party against another. The important thing is that we shall have a way of finding out what those concerns are and whether the title of this talk is a valid one.

I have ranged widely in my remarks this afternoon. But this is fitting since issues of governance or of the constitution as they used to be called have assumed a new prominence. I have touched on high constitutional matters and on practical matters of implementation. But I know that the Committee of Standards in Public Life will continue to be vigilant seeking to ensure, as its terms of reference require, the highest standards of propriety in public life.

Thank you.