To maintain integrity in decision making, public office holders should proactively and as a matter of course, satisfy themselves as to the identity of the person or organisation lobbying them (and where appropriate their client or employer), the reason for the approach and should keep a record of such meetings.
Public office holders should decline all but the most insignificant or incidental gifts, benefit or hospitality from professional lobbyists. Public office holders’ registers of interest, gifts and hospitality should be published regularly and in an easily accessible format.
The Committee on Standards and the House of Commons should reconsider implementing the recommendations of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament to: ■■ impose restrictions on parliamentary lobbying by former Members by extending the lobbying rules to them for two years in respect of approaches to Ministers, other Members or public officials; and ■■ require former Members to register for two years any occupation or employment which involves them or their employer in contact with Ministers, other Members or public officials. Consideration should be given to: ■■ whether Chairmanship of a Select Committee brings with it a particular influence on matters of public policy that justifies the imposition of additional restrictions in relation to conflicts of interests; and ■■ providing explicitly that Members should not accept all but the most insignificant or incidental gift, benefit or hospitality or payments from professional lobbyists. The House of Lords Commissioner for Standards and the Committee for Privileges should review the Code of Conduct and guidance to its Members on registering employment payments, gifts, benefits and hospitality and in relation to lobbying. 7 STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AROUND LOBBYING
As a matter of good practice, any guidance on lobbying should remind all public office holders of the principle of equality of access and the need proactively to consider, after any meeting, whether a balance of views should be obtained.
Public bodies should routinely publish information about all significant meetings and hospitality involving external attempts to influence a public policy decision. This should include significant contact (including private meetings) where a specific matter is raised which has a bearing on official business. The published information should include dates of meetings, details of attendees and meaningful descriptors of subject-matter. It should normally be published within one month on a relevant website in an easily accessible format. In the case of central government, the disclosure arrangements should cover special advisers and senior civil servants as well as Ministers, Permanent Secretaries and Departmental Boards. Public office holders who are outside the scope of the Freedom of Information Act (including Members of Parliament, Peers and Councillors) should be encouraged to disclose the same information and consideration should be given to including this in relevant Codes of Conduct.
The Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament should be revised to allow complaints to be made against an MP who is a former Minister and who takes on outside paid employment but does not follow advice provided by the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACoBA).
For transparency and public confidence reasons, Departments (and other bodies) should be required, regularly, to publish consistent summary information on cases they consider under the Business Appointment Rules.
ACoBA should publish their assessment of overall compliance with the Rules by Departments (and other bodies) in their Annual Report. Certification of compliance with the Business Appointment Rules would necessarily form part of the annual certification of the adequacy of ethical standards by accounting officers.
Given the lack of available evidence and data, the Cabinet Office, in considering the government response to the Public Administration Select Committee Report on the Business Appointment Rules, should undertake a best practice post-implementation review of the Rules including consideration of the extent to which post – public employment restrictions should be applied to all public office holders and whether a risk based approach can and should be adopted to the implementation of the Rules. 8
As a matter of best practice, before any individual agreement for secondment or interchange is entered into, consideration of the possible conflicts of interest that may arise should actively be discussed and managed by public bodies. This may require recording the possible conflict of interest, the imposition of restrictions or conditions as part of the agreement in order to manage that conflict, or ultimately refusing to agree to the secondment or interchange.
For transparency and public confidence reasons, Departments and their Agencies should be required to publish, on an annual basis, in an easily accessible format, the number of secondment and interchanges in and out of their organisation. Other public bodies should similarly proactively disclose such information.
Effective management of secondment and interchange would necessarily form part of the annual certification of the adequacy of ethical standards by accounting officers.
The relevant codes of conduct and guidance are essential information to be received by Members of both Houses of Parliament on induction. Ethics training should be included in their induction and training programme.
Accounting officers personally should certify annually that they have satisfied themselves about the adequacy of their organisation’s arrangements for safeguarding high ethical standards. This annual certification should include ensuring that officials are vigilant about contact by lobbyists, and in the case of Permanent Secretaries, that their Ministers and special advisers are reporting relevant contacts. 9 STRENGTHENING TRANSPARENCY AROUND LOBBYING