The Hindu Business Line : Tenets from the British code of conduct

IN 1853, Sir Charles Trevelyan and Sir Stafford Northcote released the report that laid the foundation of Britain's Civil Service examinations. The UK Home Civil Service is largely based on the 19th century philosophy of the Northcote-Trevelyan report. The Civil Service in India that is patterned on Whitehall is no different.

For the ongoing search in the country for a code of conduct for ministers and civil servants, the British practice could serve as a guide.

However, it was observed that the standards of the Civil Service in the UK with respect to the minister-civil servant relationship had deteriorated. "There has been a weakening of the moral compass of ministers and civil servants, a greater willingness to contemplate actions which are improper, an unhealthy closeness between ministers and civil servants."

The government was beginning to treat the Civil Service like its "fiefdom". When a government emanates a strong scent, the Civil Service is likely to pick it up. Some are repelled by it, some attracted to it. As a consequence, the Civil Service becomes politicised.

The most important guide to civil servants in the UK on their conduct vis-à-vis ministers is the note issued by then Head of Home Civil Service in 1985 titled "The duties and responsibilities of civil servants in relation to ministers", known as the (Robert) Armstrong Memorandum after its author.

"Civil servants are servants of the Crown. For all practical purposes the Crown in this context means and is represented by the government of the day ... "

The British Government, however, clarified thus:

"The Armstrong Memorandum cannot be given the interpretation that a civil servant has no duties except to the government of the day. As well as having the normal obligation of any employee to give honest and faithful service, to obey the lawful orders of his employer and to act in a manner consistent with the bond of trust and confidence any other citizen, a general duty to obey the law and to deal honestly.

"None of this is inconsistent with saying that civil servants are subservient to ministers as the representatives of the Crown in Parliament ... "

A new management code was introduced in 1993 as part of the movement towards delegating authority to personnel management within the Civil Service. An important document in this context was `Questions of procedure for ministers, which approached the vital, symbiotic relationship between ministers and civil servants.'

In 1986, it was noted that "loyalty should not be a one-way street" and the Prime Minister was called upon to "formulate and publish guidelines for ministers that would set out their duties to Parliament and responsibilities for the Civil Service". These duties were then quoted in the revised 1987 Armstrong Memorandum.

In May 1992, the Government published `Questions of procedure for ministers'. In the context of the relationship with civil servants, the most important part was paragraph 55:

"Ministers have a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants, as well as to other considerations and advice, in reaching policy decisions; a duty to refrain from asking or instructing civil servants to do things which they should not do; a duty to ensure that influence over appointments is not abused for partisan purposes; and a duty to observe the obligations of a good employer with regard to terms and conditions of those who serve them. "Civil servants should not be asked to engage in activities likely to call in question their political impartiality, or to give rise to the criticism that public funds are being used for party or political purposes."

The revised Armstrong memorandum contains a two-page procedure.

First, a civil servant who "considers that he or she is being asked to act in a manner that appears to him or her to be improper, unethical or in breach of constitutional conventions, or to involve possible maladministration, or to be otherwise inconsistent with the standards of conduct prescribed in this memorandum and in the relevant civil service codes and guides" should report the matter to a senior officer, "and if appropriate to the permanent head of the department."

Civil servants feared that any use of the procedures would displease their seniors ; civil servants were concerned that complaints might lead them to be "singled out and pilloried by ministers".

The final appeal available to an aggrieved civil servant who has exhausted all internal procedures should be to the independent and empowered body of the Civil Service Commissioners.

Civil services are required to demonstrate "the neutrality of a barrister who serves every cause in turn regardless of the rights or wrongs of the cause". Civil Service is expected to strive for objectivity, and avoid being partisan or doctrinaire.

Much of the work of the Civil Service is concerned with administration of services to the public within a legal framework.

The Civil Service has to be the servant of the government, but should not become its creature. It is expected to remain a service that provides robust and considered advice to ministers, and avoids being partisan or doctrinaire in matters of policy and constitutional propriety.

The principle of objectivity is crucial to Civil Service. So is integrity. Procedure for ministers in the UK stipulated that ministers of the Crown were expected to behave according to the highest standards of constitutional and personal conduct.

The following were the principles of ministerial conduct.

They must uphold the principle of collective responsibility. They are accountable to Parliament for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and agencies.

They must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public, and should correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. They must be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, withholding information only when disclosure would be against public interest.

They must ensure that no conflicts arise, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests.

They should avoid accepting gifts or hospitality that might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgment or place them under improper obligation.

The House of Commons must keep separate their roles as minister and constituency member.

They must not use public resources for party or political purposes. They must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service and not ask civil servants to act in any other way that would come in conflict with the Civil Service Code.

The Civil Service Code prescribes the following:

The constitutional and practical role of the Civil Service is, with integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity, to assist the duly constituted government, of whatever political complexion, in formulating policies, implementing decisions and administering public services for which the government is responsible.

Civil servants are servants of the Crown. Constitutionally, the Crown acts on the advice of ministers and, subject to the provisions of this code, civil servants owe their loyalty to the government.

They should serve the government in accordance with the principles in the code. They should recognise their accountability to the ministers, their duty discharge functions reasonably, the duty to comply with the law — international, as well as treaty obligations — and to uphold the administration of justice, and ethical standards.

They should conduct themselves with integrity, impartiality and honesty. They should give honest and impartial advice to ministers, without fear or favour, and make all information relevant to a decision available to ministers.

They should deal with the affairs of the public sympathetically, efficiently, promptly and without bias or maladministration.

They should ensure proper, effective and efficient use of public money.

They should not misuse their official position or information acquired in the course of their official duties to further private interests or those of others.

They should not receive benefits of any kind from a third party which might reasonably be seen to compromise their personal judgment or integrity.

They should conduct themselves in a way that deserves and retains the confidence of ministers, and to be able to establish the same relationship with those whom they may be required to serve in some future administration.

They should comply with restrictions on their political activities.

The conduct of civil servants should be such that ministers and future ministers can be sure that confidence can be freely given, and that the civil service will conscientiously fulfil its duties and obligations to, and impartially assist, advise and carry out the policies of the government.

They should not without authority disclose official information which has been communicated in confidence within government, or received in confidence from others.

They must not seek to frustrate the policies, decisions or actions of government by the unauthorised, improper or premature disclosure outside the government of any information to which they have had access as civil servants.

Where a civil servant believes he or she is being required to act in a way that is illegal, improper, unethical, or in breach of constitutional convention or a professional code which may involve possible maladministration, or which is otherwise inconsistent with this code, he or she should report the matter in accordance with procedures laid down in departmental guidance or rules of conduct.

A civil servant should report to the appropriate authorities evidence of criminal or unlawful activity by others and may also report in accordance with departmental procedures, if he or she becomes aware of other breaches of this code or is otherwise required to act in a way which, for him or her raises a fundamental issue of conscience.

Where a civil servant has reported a matter covered above in accordance with procedures laid down in departmental guidance or rules of conduct and believes that the response does not represent a reasonable response to the grounds of his orher concern, he or she may report the matter in writing to the Civil Service Commissioners.

They should not seek to frustrate the policies, decisions or actions of government by declining to take, or abstaining from, action which flows from ministerial decisions.

(The author is former managing director, Container Corporation of India Ltd.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
The Dragon and Elephant — It will be a difficult dance

Public policy undermined

Importance of the savings rate

Tenets from the British code of conduct

Information request in public interest

One cool judgment is worth a thousand hasty counsels

Erosion of depreciation

Our generation can choose to end extreme poverty by 2025