organisation. Surveys and studies of ethics and standards have also repeatedly shown that the public expect their parliaments to act as exemplars, and for legislators to live up to the standards they require of others. Prime responsibility for the maintenance of high standards in public organisations must always lie with individuals and organisations themselves. The public tends, however, to be cynical about self-regulation. The requirement for independent scrutiny can sometimes be met, in part, by the injection of an outside element into an organisation’s own processes, as is now the case for most of the professions.12 The General Medical Council for example, has, over the years, introduced an increasing lay element into its deliberations about the fitness to practise of doctors. Since 2009 it has been composed of an equal number of medical and lay members. We ourselves recommended in our Twelfth Report that lay members be added to the House of Commons Standards and Privileges Committee.13 We are pleased that this recommendation has now been implemented. Current risks to ethical standards The first generic risk we have identified stems from the introduction of a wide range of new ways of delivering public services – clinical commissioning groups, academies, elected police and crime commissioners (PCCs) and so on. Some of these new ways of working will entail services being delivered by people not previously involved in public service, or in different roles from those they previously occupied. It was in just such a climate that Lord Nolan’s committee produced their first report. It is essential to take care in all these cases to design governance structures which actively promote the right ethical behaviour. The natural place to look for requirements to promote high standards of ethical behaviour is in the specification of contracts let by the public sector for the provision of services. We found it difficult to find much evidence of this, except where the contract was to procure ethical goods (such as Fair Trade or Forest Stewardship Council certified products). Unless the public sector does specify ethical requirements in its contracts it is unlikely that the market will operate to drive up ethical as well as quality standards and value for money. Our second generic concern is the potential effect on efforts to promote high ethical standards of cuts in organisational budgets resulting from the current climate of austerity. The main risk is that financial constraints may reduce management support for investment in the promotion of high ethical standards or create a temptation for organisations or individuals to cut corners. While there should be a presumption that efficiency gains in standards, as elsewhere, should be secured where possible, we must take care that the infrastructure supporting standards is not fatally undermined, nor corners S t a n d a r d s ma t t e r cut that could undo the improvements which have been made or further damage confidence and trust. A secondary risk is that budget cuts may undermine the commitment of some individuals to public service values. We intend to continue monitoring these risks. We also have a number of concerns about specific issues, among them: • Political lobbying (levels of transparency) • Political party funding • Increased potential for electoral fraud (through technological and other recent changes) • Local government standards • Behaviour and conduct of the police • Interchange between public and private sectors • Special advisers operating at the boundary of politics and the civil service Conclusions Our key message is this: much of the basic infrastructure to support high standards is now in place. Most public services and public office-holders have adopted statements of high level principles and codes of practice, and are subject to some form of external scrutiny. But it is self-evident, not least from recent events, that these mechanisms by themselves are not enough. Many of those whose integrity has been called into question in recent months and years seem to have behaved inappropriately not because they were unaware of what was expected but because they did not find it expedient. High standards of behaviour need to be understood as a matter of personal responsibility, embedded in organisational processes and actively and consistently demonstrated, especially by those in leadership positions. This report presents some ideas about how this may be achieved. Conclusion one The basic building blocks for promoting high standards remain much as identified by the original Nolan Committee – a set of broadly expressed values which everyone understands, codes of practice elaborating what the principles mean in the particular circumstances of an organisation, effective internal processes to embed a culture of high standards, leadership by example and proportionate, risk-based external scrutiny. Many organisations delivering public services, including those voluntary, private sector, mutual or social enterprise organisations taking on contracts from the public sector, already regularly assess how well they measure up to best practice in ethical governance. All organisations need to actively review their current practices as a matter of routine, making sure that they consider all those factors affecting Commonwealth Governance Handbook 2013/14 49
CGH13_ebook
To see the actual publication please follow the link above