3 Public concern, and responsibility
for monitoring interchange
25. ACoBA's advice to applicants is published
on its website when the Advisory Committee becomes aware that
the appointment has been taken up. The existing Business Appointment
Rules system relies on "the threat of hostile public reaction
and media comment" as a "powerful and effective disincentive
to break the rules".[20]
This assumes that all public office holders will act in accordance
with the "Nolan" principles (named after the first Chairman
of the Committee on Standards in Public Life) of Selflessness,
Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and
Leadership. Lord Lang told the Committee:
If [someone] ignored the lobbying ban and we were
asked, we would give information about the terms on which we had
imposed it and it would be self-evident that there had been a
breach, and it is then for others under Nolan principles to react.[21]
[…]
The sanction is public opinion and reputational damage.[22]
Proportionate coverage
26. The danger of reliance simply on the Nolan
principles to enforce appropriate behaviour in public office is
that the "court of public opinion" is not impartial
or objective, and is heavily reliant on the reporting of information
about business appointments in the media. In reporting these cases,
the press itself is reliant on the limited information published
by ACoBA, and perceived impropriety by public figures makes an
attractive news story. Non-controversial cases receive little
or no coverage, while a minority of potentially questionable cases
tend receive a disproportionate amount of media interest, in part
simply because they are unusual. This disproportionate focus on
the minority of high-profile cases creates a tendency to assume
that bad faith is widespread in the public service, and contributes
to "significant public suspicion regarding the relationship
between Government, both elected politicians and civil servants,
and large businesses".[23]
27. Lord Lang told us that "in reality,
I think there have been very few abuses".[24]
He explained that he was "concerned that the media, seeking
a lurid headline or because they do not have the information,
jump to conclusions, which is unfair to the individual concerned".[25]
He went on:
If I were an outsider and I read some of the stories
that had appeared in the press, I would be concerned, so anybody
reading those stories must have a measure of concern. My anxiety
is that those stories are giving a misleading picture, whether
intentionally or otherwise. […] the vast majority of people
who come to us have absolutely no intention of trying to pull
the wool over anyone's eyes or secure a special advantage in one
way or another.[26]
28. In written evidence, the ACoBA Secretariat
explained that it:
publishes details of appointments taken up that it
has advised upon, the content of its recommendation including
the substance of its letters of advice and, increasingly, more
information about a case - for example any undertakings given
by an applicant in relation to the appointment they are about
to take up. Furthermore, ACoBA is keen to encourage departments
themselves to publish greater information about conditions and
restrictions imposed on those civil servants outside of ACoBA's
remit in appointments they take up on departing the Service.[27]
29. At present, rebuttal of misleading media
coverage of business appointments falls to ACoBA. Lord Lang explained
that the ACoBA press officer currently gives enquiring journalists
"the information that we are able to give, which is what
we have decided and recommended".[28]
He said that he had "been persuaded that it is inappropriate
for the committee" to demand press corrections and retractions,
but that he personally would like to see such demands being made.[29]
30. Reliance on reputational
damage as a deterrent to improper behaviour is predicated on the
wider public being able to reach a properly informed judgement
about the behaviour in question, yet the "court of public
opinion" is neither impartial nor objective. Full and fair
information about each case must be put into the public domain
to reduce the potential for misleading reporting, and to assist
those involved in replying to accusations and defending their
reputation. We support the recent efforts by ACoBA to increase
the information made available on its website, and recommend that
all government departments publish similar information about the
advice given to their former civil servants, and the restrictions
(if any) imposed upon them. The information published should explain
and justify the advice given and any action taken.
31. If the Government stands
by its policy of encouraging interchange, it also has a moral
duty robustly to defend any former Minister or public servant
who is the target of unjustified criticism by the media. Arrangements
should be made to ensure that individuals who have complied with
the spirit and letter of the advice given to them are protected
from any unfair smear or innuendo. Any statements made should
reiterate the Government's active support for interchange between
the public and other sectors, acknowledge the perceived risks
and explain the measures which are in place to manage any potential
conflict of interest, not just simply confirm that the correct
procedure has been followed.
20 Ev 65 Back
21
Q 294 Back
22
Q 295 Back
23
Ev 63 Back
24
Q 296 Back
25
Q 289 Back
26
Q 291 Back
27
Ev 65 Back
28
Q 381 Back
29
Q 389 Back
| 
