CODES OF CONDUCT


the Parliament by the constitution. MPs do not have a Westminster- type relationship with the Executive. In at least some such presidencies, MPs believe it is unethical to favour some constituents by taking up their grievances with the president’s Executive, thereby giving those citizens an advantage not available to all.


Does that issue have relevance


in Westminster-heritage systems? Perhaps we could consider cases in which travel resource limits do not enable an MP to meet and hear the grievances of constituents remote from the capital city. As an MP, is it ethical to advantage some constituents over others who have limited access to their MP whether due to location or political allegiance?


Allowances, entitlements How as an MP you have used entitlements to allowances is a common reason for claims of unethical behaviour. Here we are thinking of the rights to receive money for purposes related to duties as an MP, including in the constituency, or to be reimbursed for funds so spent, in both cases from public funds. Whether the MP is right to use or claim public funds for carrying out responsibilities as an MP is the key test for these entitlements. It is clear cut if the MP participates in an event because of his or her constituency, subnational or national role and status. Less clear and therefore


demanding better ethical judgement are cases such as the costs of maintaining a second home close to


42 | The Parliamentarian | 2014: Issue One


Parliament in order to attend sittings, committee meetings and other capital city activities, if the MP lives too far away to commute from home. Claiming the costs of uncommonly expensive housing or house maintenance, such as infamously dredging the moat at a then UK MP’s estate, may be within the “black letter” of entitlement rules but is unlikely to be seen as reasonable or ethical. Whether and to what extent


personal behaviour is seen as unethical varies widely. Local culture plays a part and that may change over time. We have seen instances of personal behaviour in private life cause severe embarrassment, or worse, in some countries whilst revelations of similar behaviour in another country or at another time


have passed with barely a ripple. These first three types of unethical


conduct are relatively obvious and straightforward. Some other types of conduct raise deeper issues.


A fiduciary duty? Fiduciary duty requires that someone who has power to make decisions affecting others should not put their own interests above those of the people affected. The principle is widely applied in the duties of, for example, company directors. In the public sphere, historically it obliged the British monarch to put the interests of British subjects ahead of the interests of the royal family. Although the Glorious Revolution, Bill of Rights and subsequent democratic reforms tended to supplant that fiduciary


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