THIS, Mr. Editor, is an opportune time for reflection — for any number of good reasons, what with: (a) the House on the Hill down and out for an early summer; or (b) recent events which have left us gagging inside and outside Parliament; or (c) continued and growing speculation of an early election; or (d) all of the above.In my case, this also means another column — surprise, surprise — once again on a subject near and dear to my political heart, parliamentary reform.

You may recall that four of my colleagues recently returned from London (not to see the Queen, Mr. Editor, but the people at the Foewign<\p>&<\p>Commonwealth Office), and included in their visit was a stop at the office of the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer.

It was a chance to see first-hand how parliamentarians over there govern themselves and on their return to share with us practices and procedures which can be adopted and/or adapted locally to bring about better governance here in Bermuda.

They were given plenty of reading material to bring back (as you might expect) which they gave me to read and report on (as I expected , as Opposition House Leader and Shadow spokesman for Legislative Reform and Justice).

The United Bermuda Party has been on about the need for a parliamentary Code of Conduct for some years now — and the development and adoption of a Code for Bermuda will feature in our election manifesto.

The UK Parliament has had one for over ten years now and it could easily serve as a guide to what can be done here.

Their code — which has recently been revised — applies to members in all aspects of their public life, but not their private and personal lives. Its purpose is to provide guidance on the standards of conduct expected of members in discharging their parliamentary and public duties, and in so doing to also provide for the sort of transparency and accountability that is thought necessary to instill public confidence in the way they perform those duties.

The Code is not long: it consists of three broad statements of public duty and eight specific rules of conduct. It also incorporates the Seven Principles of Public Life, as they are known (see insert), which serve as a guide to both interpretation and application of the Code.

For the keen and enterprising, the text of the Code may be found at www.parliament.uk/pcs.

For those who wish to read on, uninterrupted, the Code in summary requires members to: Avoid conflict between personal interest and public interest and resolve any conflict between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest;

Never accept a bribe, act as a paid advocate or misuse expenses, allowances, facilities or services provided from the public purse;

Never to use for financial gain any information which they receive in confidence in the course of their parliamentary duties;

Uphold the law;

At all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament,and never to undertake any action which would bring Parliament or its members generally into disrepute;

Observe the House’s Rules, for example, and in particular, as regards the registration and declaration of interests. Bermuda already has a Register of Members’ Interests, although its adoption and enforcement appears to date to be purely voluntary and without sanction for failure to comply.

The UK Register on the other hand is an important part of a stronger, more comprehensive scheme of governance overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

The main purpose of the Register is “to provide information of any pecuniary or other material benefit which a Member receives which might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions, speeches or votes in Parliament, or actions taken in his or her capacity as a Member of Parliament.” The Register is available to the public both at the House of Commons and on line.

It’s significant too, I think, Mr. Editor, that the test for registration is not what a member thinks might influence them but what might be reasonably thought by others to influence them. It falls to the Parliamentary Commissioner to devise and apply the appropriate test in each case.

The Commissioner provides the independent element to the UK scheme. His main duties are:

Overseeing the maintenance of the Register of Members’ Interests, as well as other registers of interests which they have over there, including registers for Members’ staff and, Mr. Editor, journalists;

With the Registrar of Members’ Interests, advising on the registration and declaration of interests;

Advising the Committee on Standards and Privileges on the interpretation of the Code of Conduct;

Monitoring the operation of the Code and registers and making recommendations to the Committee on Standards and Privileges;

And receiving, investigating and reporting to the Committee on complaints against Members. The Committee on Standards and Privileges is another critical component. It oversees the work the Commissioner who, incidentally, is appointed for a five-year, non-renewable term, and who is not liable for dismissal except by resolution of the House.

The Committee consists of 10 Members, five drawn from the Government benches and five from those of the Opposition.

Its Chairman, by the way, is the ranking senior Opposition member. How about that for bite, Mr. Editor?

It is the responsibility of this bi-partisan body to: Oversee the work of the Commissioner;

To examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests;

And to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registration and declaration of interests which are referred to it by the Commissioner; and, Consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints of alleged breaches of the Code, which includes adjudication of guilt or innocence, on the basis of reports prepared by the Commissioner, and advising the House on appropriate penalties.

Complaints can come from MPs or the public — and it may interest readers to know that the number of complaints for last year numbered 134, almost the same as that recorded for the previous year (137).

How effective is the U.K. scheme, Mr. Editor? Last word on this to the Commissioner, Sir Philip Mawer, who reflected on the efficacy of the establishment of Parliamentary standards and associated arrangements in the foreword to his most recent Annual Report for the year 2005-2006: “Over the past 10 years, those arrangements have gradually been strengthened to the point where, I believe, they can fairly be said to provide a robust and impartial means of investigating complaints and seeking to prevent wrong-doing”.

Enough said.