Governmental standards of behaviour

The informal nature of much of the UK constitution, notably at the higher levels, makes the arrangements vulnerable to suspicions of corruption and nepotism.

A series of scandals during the 1980s and 1990s exposed significant corruption, ambivalence and incompetence within central and local government and Parliament. These included the “cash-for-questions” affair in 1994 involving several MPs; the “arms to Iraq” affair which involved allegations that ministers had tried to cover up breaches of UN sanctions against Iran and which resulted in the lengthy but inconclusive Scott Report; the prosecution of whistleblowers such as Kathie Massister, Clive Ponting and Peter Wright under the now repealed Official Secrets Act 1911, various incidents including the Westlands affair in 1987 which appeared to involve civil servants disregarding the traditional principle of impartiality and conniving with ministers against each other; cases where MPs and a cabinet minister, Jonathan Ajtken received favours from outside interests. These incidents gave the UK government a reputation what was widely known as “sleaze”. In 1986 in its 8th Report, the Public Accounts Committee pointed to a “departure from the standards of public conduct which have mainly been established during the past 140 years”.

The result was an attempt to lay down standards of behaviour to be expected from persons in public fife. The Committee on Standards in Public Life (The Nolan Committee) was appointed in 1994 as a standing committee with wide terms of reference. These included the UK and European parliaments, central and local government and other publicly funded bodies such as universities and local voluntary bodies. Currently chaired by Lord Neill, the Committee reports into current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public officebut does not investigate complaints against individuals. A Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was created in 1996 to deal with questions arising out of MPs' interests, and various codes of conduct have been produced for ministers and civil servants.

The Committee identified what has come to be known as the “Seven Principles of Public Life”. These are selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. Except in Northern Ireland, these standards have no legal force and the traditional doctrine that the executive should be regulated by closed internal methods remains dominant. It has however been argued that the formulation of broad principles such as fairness, rationality, proportionality and respect for rights might form the basis of public law reform. Such principles although too vague to be applied as rules might form a common currency to guide the courts and administrative decision-makers. This proposal helps to provide a framework for choosing between liberal and communitarian values, which is arguably the best we can hope for in a democratic constitution.

b) Provide definitions for “corruption” and “Nepotism”.

c) Why is the UK government known as “sleaze”?

d) Put the following traits selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership in the order of your personal priorities (from most important to the least important).

TASK VII. Read the text and summarise the reasons for exceptions to collective decision-taking:

Formally, the only major exception to the requirement that important policy decisions need collective clearance is by convention tax policy, decisions on which are for the Chancellor, consulting the Prime Minister. Even in the case of tax changes, some consultation with colleagues is normal where the change in question affects their policy interests but this is done bilaterally, not collectively.

Sometimes an exception has to be made in cases of urgency or sensitivity. In these cases one would expect the Minister to consult the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the relevant Cabinet Committee - together with the Chancellor if there are cost implications; and if the issue is important to write to colleagues collectively after the event for information or to validate what has been done.

Are Prime Ministers justified in taking important decisions outside Cabinet, deliberately keeping an issue away from their colleagues? Most modern Prime Ministers have done so to some degree and it would be unrealistic to expect that this should never happen because one cannot and should not take the politics out of Government. There may be issues of such sensitivity that the Prime Minister does not wish to risk consideration in Cabinet or Cabinet Committee. If the Government is prone to leaks, as most are from time to time, this may be especially understandable. There may be other difficult issues in respect of which the Prime Minister is clear about the approach needed but on which the Government is divided and the dynamics of discussion in a body as large as the modern Cabinet would make it hard to get the right solution. In either case the Prime Minister might be justified in dealing with the issue outside Cabinet. But even in these cases one would expect him to consult his most senior colleagues; and this approach should be the exception, not the rule.

Rather than taking sensitive decisions outside the system, it is, of course, open to a Prime Minister to use the system to drive through controversial proposals. It has been normal for Prime Ministers to chair some of the key Committees of the Cabinet in order to be able to exercise influence or control on issues of the greatest importance to the Government.

Some Prime Ministers have used ad hoc Cabinet Committees with a carefully selected membership to tackle specific issues, chairing some of these themselves (Wilson and Thatcher both made extensive use of these). This seems a preferable approach to the more informal arrangements discussed in the previous paragraph, even though it may be used to exclude the majority of the Cabinet from participating in a decision.

The following issues will help you to answer the exam question THE UK GOVERNMENT and to write your essay:

1.The relationships between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

2. The Cabinet is the central institution of the UK Constitution.

3. Is government a science, a business or an art?

---

Дата добавления: 2015-11-14