Editorial | IC’s code still relevant

This newspaper agrees with Prime Minister Andrew Holness that the Seven Principles of Public Life “are as enduring now” as when Lord Nolan first declared them in 1995, and when P.J. Patterson asked his ministers to abide by them seven years later.

Which is why we find odd Mr Holness’ resistance, notwithstanding his plan to have Parliament establish its own framework of good behaviour, to his Cabinet signing the code of conduct proposed by the island’s Integrity Commission (IC). For the commission’s code is a near mirror image of the Nolan Principles and almost identical to what Mr Patterson asked his ministers to adhere to.

The major difference between now and 2002 when Mr Patterson tabled the Nolan Principles in Parliament as a ministry paper is that the Integrity Commission proposed that the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition, on behalf of their respective councils, actually sign the document. So far, 22 members of the shadow Cabinet have affixed their signatures to the pledge, making them specifically and individually accountable for their conduct. No one was asked to sign the Patterson document. No one did!

We can only assume that the prime minister’s, and the government’s, posture on the matter is grounded in hubris and seething resentments against the IC, as is reflected in the assaults on the commission by even very senior members of the government.

The Seven Principles of Public Life, as Mr Holness reminded Parliament on Tuesday, call on public officials to operate with selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. They were first enunciated by a committee chaired by a British peer and judge, Baron Nolan, which was asked John Major’s government to fashion a conduct for MPs and other public officials after of a wave of scandals in British politics, including parliamentarians taking cash to ask questions and promote private interests in the Commons.

ENDORSEMENT

Mr Holness’ full-throated endorsement of the enduring worth of principles came as he tabled, as a parliamentary green paper, long-promised job description for ministers, a white paper on what is expected of MPs.

The prime minister was spurred into delivering the long-promised documents because of the public backlash against the big salary increases – over 200 per cent over three years in some instances – the government gave to ministers and other MPs as part of a public sector job reclassification exercise.

While Mr Holness has effectively settled on roles and obligations of his ministers, the broader question of what is properly a regular parliamentarian’s job is to be taken up by a joint select committee. That committee is to also recommend a code of conduct for parliamentarians, including updating the Patterson document.

“Every minister in the Cabinet is bound by this (Patterson) code of conduct,” Mr Holness said. “The Seven Principles of Public Life must apply to anyone in the public service or who works as a public officeholder. Most especially, these principles must also apply to our members of parliament.”

But critically, Mr Holness insisted that it was up to Parliament to establish, and enforce, its own code of behaviour, rather than outsiders telling it what to do.

“It cannot be good for this institution that the society must tell us the standards to which we must adhere,” Mr Holness said. “We are not a parliament of children; we must be the body that leads the setting of standards and carry the people with us.”

There can be no quarrel that Parliament has an obligation to establish, and enforce, a code of behaviour that insists on decency and accountability from its members. The problem faced by Jamaica’s Parliament – hence the citizenry’s insistence on its need of outside help in crafting these regulations – is the low level of public trust in the institution and in politicians. Indeed, this newspaper recently reported the finding of a survey which showed that politicians had moved ahead of the police in people’s perception of the most corrupt group in the country.

GOOD FAITH EFFORT

In the circumstance, acceding to the IC’s code of conduct would be a signal of the government’s good faith effort to reverse these perceptions.

Indeed, while the Patterson ministry paper draws “the attention of the House” to the Nolan Principles “to which all members of the House are expected to adhere”, the IC’s code, though not a parliamentary document, is presented as a resolution setting out the obligations to which the leaders and their Cabinets would “hereby agree to adhere” as well as “solemnly undertake to actively promote and robustly support and implement”.

Inexplicably, the prime minister hasn’t formally acknowledged the commission’s letter of invitation to sign the document. Since then, what was seen by some as a deliberate snub of the IC descended into a full-blown assault on the commission over a raft of grievances.

Mr Holness might well be right that Parliament should ultimately craft its own code of conduct. In the meantime, though, it would be a public confidence-booster if ministers signed on the IC’s document.