You might think this timely, Mr Editor. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has come up with recommendations for Codes of Conduct for MPs — and just to be clear this is for the consideration of Legislatures throughout the Commonwealth. Bermuda is no exception. We are on their mailing list. We’re members.

The circular, which went out just last month, is a bit of a long read but nonetheless makes for interesting reading. For those who are interested, and keen, the recommendations are posted on the CPA website, I am told: www.cpahq.org/cpahq. Word search “code of conduct”.

The benchmarks tend to be general in nature (no surprise there really) so that they might be suitably tailored to suit the circumstances, needs and resources of member jurisdictions.

The emphasis — and again no surprise here — is on the promotion of ethical conduct.

The guiding principles advanced for consideration are pretty straightforward. The headings with a couple of excerpts are:

• Selflessness

• Integrity

• Objectivity

• Accountability: “Members ... are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.”

• Openness: “Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for doing so.”

• Honesty

• Leadership: “Members ... should actively promote and robustly support the principles and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

The benchmarks also address in some detail how Legislatures should approach matters like:

• Disclosure and publication of interests

• Use of public property: “not ... for party political purposes”.

• Inducements: “any form of inducement that could rise to conflict of interests or influence behaviour”.

• Civility

• Behaviour: “A member shall not assault, harass or intimidate another person.”

• Attendance

These items really do constitute the guts of any code. Some of the matters are already covered here in Bermuda either through the Standing Orders (rules) of the Legislature or through legislation. Nevertheless, the CPA list should make for an engaging and timely review. An overhaul may be in order.

As always though the question is: How will they be enforced, and by whom?

Well, there’s always the Speaker of course, for matters which occur inside the Chamber and within the precincts of the House generally; ditto for the president of the Senate.

But the CPA has come up with a few of its own suggestions which may well plug a gap when it comes to observance and enforcement. The CPA is recommending the establishment of:

• An Ethics Adviser; and

• An independent system for investigating alleged breaches.

Oh, oh, I can hear you now: more bureaucracy, more wheels, more delay and more expense. You may be right on that score and ultimately it will be — as it always is — a question of needs and priorities.

But it could also be approached by grafting on to what we already have and cutting our parliamentary cloth accordingly.

Bermuda is ahead in some areas already with reference to the CPA’s checklist of components for Integrity. We have:

• An independent Auditor General;

• Ombudsman, also independent of Executive control;

• PAC, chaired by an Opposition MP, which should have “[the] powers and resources to critically review government policies and expenditure”. Quite. Sorry I couldn’t resist adding that qualification, for obvious reasons.

• Parliamentary immunity; and

• Whistleblower legislation.

However, there is one area where we need to play catch up: election campaign donations and expenditure.

The CPA is recommending a regulatory authority to record and monitor any and all political campaign costs and donations to parties and to MPs and not just at election times either but continuously. In the spirit of recent exchanges, and with good humour and ill will to none, for now let’s call this elephant in the room: campaigngate.