What next for standards in public life?
What next for standards in public life? . Doug Chalmers, chair, spoke at the Institute for Government’s event ‘What next for standards in public life?’ marking the 30th anniversary of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. By Doug Chalmers Let me take you all back to 1994 – take that topped the charts, The Channel Tunnel linking France and England was opened, […]
The post What next for standards in public life? appeared first on Caribbean News Global.
Caribbean News Global
Doug Chalmers, chair, spoke at the Institute for Government’s event ‘What next for standards in public life?’ marking the 30th anniversary of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

By Doug Chalmers

Let me take you all back to 1994 – take that topped the charts, The Channel Tunnel linking France and England was opened, and Apartheid ended in South Africa with Nelson Mandela inaugurated as president.

It was also when The Guardian uncovered that two Members of Parliament, MPs had been taking money and gifts in return for asking questions in the House of Commons from Mohammed Al Fayed, then the owner of Harrods.

This ‘cash for questions’ scandal led the then prime minister, Sir John Major – to establish a standing committee to recommend changes to promote high standards in public life. Chaired by Lord Nolan, a senior judge, the Committee on Standards in Public Life produced its first report in 1995 restating the values expected of those in public service, now known as the Nolan Principles. Lord Nolan also set out three ‘golden threads’ necessary for ensuring standards: first, codes of conduct, second, independent scrutiny and third, education.

That first report established many of the regulators we now take for granted. It might seem unimaginable today that MPs would not have to declare their interests or that a well-paid appointment to the board of a major public body was made simply by a ‘tap on the shoulder’.

Thirty years ago, Nolan talked about how changes in the public sector had increased the need to act citing decentralisation, contracting out, and scepticism in traditional institutions. Thirty years on, we could say the same. The nature of public life and the regulation landscape have all become more complex.

There are now statutory regulators for election finance, civil service appointments, use of statistics…and a range of other bodies with non-statutory remits including the independent adviser on ministerial standards and ACOBA.

There is no doubt that our public life is more transparent than it was. But there is also no doubt that standards matters still concern the public. There is no room for complacency. And while sunlight may be the ‘best disinfectant’ we now know that transparency alone does not simply translate into greater public trust. Just following the rules doesn’t build trust, context is needed as well.

To some degree public cynicism is a healthy thing, but in an age of social media echo chambers and soundbite viral clips, finding something positive to say about standards might sound radical or misconceived.

But I believe that there is a positive story to tell.

The effectiveness of the Nolan Principles in permeating public life; the way they are familiar to nurses, local government, police and MPs as the baseline of expected conduct, is a clear success.

Honesty, openness, objectivity, selflessness, integrity, accountability, and leadership are the principles expected of all those in public life. They underlie codes of conduct, they are on lanyards and fridge magnets and noticeboards across the public sector – reminding those who work there to keep to the values that the public expects. They are regularly used in media interviews to ask politicians to justify decisions, they are quoted in complaint letters and feature in editorials critical of the conduct of public officials.

The principles aren’t rules – the context-specific codes of conduct set those – but they are a shared understanding of the values we expect in our liberal democracy. In effect, they are the spirit rather than the letter. And yes, they are unenforceable and open to interpretation – nevertheless, these seven words set the framework in the UK as the agreed standards that the public expects of those in public life. And they set the lens through which judgements should be made.

The Committee’s role – as a ‘workshop for running repairs’ – was really an experiment back in the 90s in response to a crisis. But its independent, unbiased and careful work – stepping back, taking evidence from a wide range of voices and making recommendations to improve standards – has proven influential and worthwhile.

That is not to say that scandals haven’t happened – they have. And the work of a free media has played a big part in helping to scrutinise and hold officeholders to account. But so has the diligent work of many officials, parliamentarians and experts in helping to lead and deliver standards changes.

I would also at this point like to pay tribute to those who have served as standards regulators over the past 30 years. These are not always easy or popular roles – but they are important in providing the proper independent adjudication necessary to retain public trust.

The focus of our most recent report – Leading in Practice – was the practical steps that leaders can take to develop a culture where people are encouraged to discuss the ethical implications of their work and live up to the high standards of conduct expected of them. An ethical culture does not happen by accident, nor can it be set in stone: it requires constant attention. The unglamorous but really important stuff of regular reviews of codes of conduct, regular publication of registers of interests needs to be seen as a priority.

Organisations – from hospitals to parliament – must evolve over time as new risks emerge and understanding of good practice develops. There are factors that leaders in organisations should pay close and regular attention to – our forthcoming report, which looks into how organisations can spot early warning signs of when things go wrong and react appropriately, will illustrate this.

The government has proposed an overarching Ethics and Integrity Commission and we look forward to working with that body although its structure and remit are at this point still unclear. But no matter how good this new institution is, the work will not be finished: issues change, problems evolve, cracks appear – and standards need to keep pace with these developments and the public’s expectations. They also need to be timely and not create unnecessary bureaucracy. And above all the need for standards must be kept alive, talked about and discussed, underscoring their value and relevance for new generations of public officials.

I referred at the start of my talk to Nolan’s reference to changes and the increased complexity in the public sector and how that has only increased since Nolan published his first report. Now in our 30th year, we want to discuss what is next for standards in public life. To mark our anniversary, the Committee will be holding a series of seminars and events, talking to academics, students, practitioners, officials and experts about the relevance of the principles and how – with the rapid evolving technological developments, including AI, and broader societal changes – we best understand the implications of these developments for our ethical culture and standards framework, and keep this spirit alive for another 30 years.
Santa Lucía
Caribbean News And Beyond
https://caribbeannewsglobal.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/doug_chalmers.jpg
https://caribbeannewsglobal.com/what-next-for-standards-in-public-life/
2024-11-23
rss
Doug Chalmers, chair, spoke at the Institute for Government’s event ‘What next for standards in public life?’ marking the 30th anniversary of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. By Doug Chalmers Let me take you all back to 1994 – take that topped the charts, The Channel Tunnel linking France and England was opened, […]
The post What next for standards in public life? appeared first on Caribbean News Global.
What next for standards in public life?