CODES OF CONDUCT
attracts public attention and which leads to MPs being sanctioned or resigning office. In summary, these may include: conflict of interest; misuse of entitlements; personal behaviour; fiduciary duty; and discharge of a public trust.
Conflicts of interest – potential, perceived, or actual Conflict of interest arises when an MP is faced with a decision which could either advance the public interest or some special interest but not both. For example, if funds were allocated to a project in which the MP had no personal financial interest but which served the public interest at least as well, or even better, than funding of a different project to be constructed by a particular contractor through which the MP would profit personally. The MP would have two interests in conflict: an obligation to serve the public interest and an incentive to
seek personal advantage. Sometimes the special advantage is not direct but may be to a family member, a friend, a business partner or a group with whom the MPs has or seeks a relationship. The “relationship” may be a simple as seeking political support for re-election or appointment to higher office. MPs involved in fundraising for
personal or party campaign funds face particular risk of conflict of interest. It is difficult to avoid the perception, even if not the reality, that donors to political parties hope for favourable treatment when decisions are made affecting their own interests. Likewise, individuals paying exorbitant amounts to attend meals with leading MPs do so in the expectation of privilege access to those MPs and the chance to influence policy or even specific decisions affecting their interests. Where directors authorize donations, legally they exercise their
judgement that to do so is in the best interests of that firm, necessarily ahead of the general public interest and thus putting the MPs in a starkly obvious conflict of interest. Whilst MPs may claim that they act ethically and they are not influenced by such conflicts, evidence of human behaviour in other occupations (e.g. scientific testing of medicinal drugs) suggest that people do succumb to such influences all too often, albeit unconsciously. As an MP, you are expected
to avoid not just actual conflicts of interest but perceived and potential ones too.
Fair – but to whom? A slightly different question rarely asked in our Westminster tradition concerns the very nature of representation. We accept that the Parliament’s basic functions include representation, legislating and
Above: The 1215 Magna Carta. The historical document was a codification of the relationship between the monarch and the British people, and continues to be a foundation to establish the accepted conduct of the monarch.
scrutiny of the political Executive i.e. the government. Accordingly each individual MP has corresponding roles. In our tradition, representation goes beyond acting as a trustee of the constituency in debating and voting on legislation; it includes taking up grievances with the government on behalf of constituents. Not all democratic systems
accept this as ethical. In Executive presidencies, the president and his or her Executive (ministers or other title) are deliberately separated from
The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One | 41
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72