A journalist called me today to ask if the government was responding to any of the recommendations made in my recent report for Transparency International UK on the Revolving Door. I was in the middle of something else and told him a little grumpily that I wasn't aware of any steps being taken but maybe he should call the Cabinet Office and ask them.
He didn't let me off that lightly, and I'm glad he didn't, because he got me thinking about the political feasibility of some of our proposals. I can see, for example, that it's difficult to turn ACOBA into a statutory body when you are trying to cut spending on public administration. And it's also not going to be popular with civil servants worried about their job security if you start putting new restrictions on their post-public employment. I think both proposals are merited, but they do have downsides.
But I fail to see a downside with some of our other suggestions. For instance, why not make the ACOBA committee more representative of society? It does look bad that it comprises, as Radio 4 producer Andy Denwood pointed out, four peers, two knights and a dame. What is to be lost by appointing a couple of representatives of civil society to give a different perspective?
I also think our suggestion to do a risk assessment of different types of role is a no-brainer. An individual who has worked in procurement in the Ministry of Defence should be treated as higher risk than a press officer in the Ministry of Justice. Just as companies do risk assessments when they are considering going into business with a new partner, and then do deeper or shallower due diligence depending on the level of risk, ACOBA should have a sophisticated system for assessing where the greatest risks of a conflict of interest lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment