Questioning the standards of the CSPL

Anonymous writes: I write with great concern regarding the recent release issued by the Commission for Standards in Public Life (CSPL) concerning their examination of the declarations made by Wayne Panton MP and Sabrina Turner MP and the CSPL’s determination that there have been no breaches of the Register of Interests requirements as outlined in the Standards in Public Life Act (The Act).

While the CSPL determined no breach of the law, it went on to “emphasize” to all persons in public life the importance of transparency.

The CSPL further stated that it would be reviewing its guidance notes for Persons in Public Life and is considering necessary legislative amendments to “ensure declarants have a clear and full understanding of the need to declare possible or perceived conflicts”.

I pause here to highlight two very important points:

1. When the existence of the loan from Mr Panton to Mrs Turner was first initially reported to the public by Cayman News Service on 09/09/2024, the publication stated the following:

“Panton has confirmed that the loan agreement and terms were drawn up by lawyers and the details are on the land registry documents and available for public scrutiny. He said he did not declare making a loan to Turner at the time on the Register of Interests because this is not required under the legislation, even though she was his health minister at the time and he currently holds the charge on her existing home.”

This statement indicates that Panton did not make a declaration concerning the loan; however, the CSPL now states that it has “examined the declarations made by both parties”. This indicates that Panton has now made a declaration after the fact, which also indicates that his belief that it was not required under the legislation was, in fact, wrong.

Would the failure to make a declaration not be an offence under the Act, notwithstanding that there may or may not have been any wrongdoing on either party’s part?

The critical question here is whether Mr Panton made a declaration and whether the CSPL has referred the initial failure to make a declaration to the Speaker of Parliament, as it is required to do under the Act. Accepting an after-the-fact declaration does not absolve the former premier of his failure to make a declaration within 30 days, and at the very least, this fact should have been disclosed in the CSPL release.

2. The CSPL now finds it necessary to review its guidance notes and the legislation to ensure that there is full understanding of the need to declare possible or perceived conflicts.

This statement is misleading at best. The legislation’s drafting was guided by the Nolan Principles, first and foremost of which is the requirement for public office holders to act selflessly, ensuring that they act solely in terms of the public interest.

The Nolan Principles also require that public office holders be accountable, ensuring that their actions and decisions are open to scrutiny, and they must be open and transparent ensuring that information is not withheld from the public without clear and lawful excuse. The principles also require public office holders to be truthful.

It is clear that by not making a declaration, Mr Panton violated these key and well-articulated principles, which are clearly set out in Schedule 2 of the Act. For emphasis, the Act states the following:

“Honesty: Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts of interest arising in a way that protects the public interest.”

There can be no doubt that a loan to and holding a charge over a fellow cabinet minister’s property would constitute a private interest related to the former premier’s public duties.

One must, therefore, question how the CSPL could issue a statement which states that neither Mr Panton nor Mrs Turner’s actions constituted a breach of the law when we know that:

1. Mr Panton did not make a declaration initially, and that;

2. Mrs Turner did not name Mr Panton as the lender in her declaration and;

3. to date, the public has not, in the interests of transparency, had the opportunity to see the loan agreement that was made between the parties.

The Act also clearly sets out the requirements for making a declaration in Section 11 and states in Section 11(3) that:

“Where any change occurs in relation to the matters which a person in public life has previously declared, that person shall, within thirty days of the change occurring make a new declaration or an amendment to the declaration.”

Mr Panton, therefore, should have made a declaration (if he was required to do so) within 30 days of the loan arrangements being finalised.

The question remains: Was Mr Panton required to make a declaration? The answer is clearly set out in Section 12 of the Act, which details the circumstances where a declaration is required.

Section 12(1)(e) requires a declaration of the details of “any land, whether beneficial or otherwise”. As the Charge over Minister Turner’s property was made under the Registered Land Law and the charge itself was made over her “Land”, a declaration concerning this was required from Mr Panton.

Section 12(1)(h) requires a declaration of the details of “sources of income other than a salary or money from other perquisites of office”. We have not seen the terms of the loan and whether any interest payments are included. If they are, a declaration from Mr Panton most certainly would be required under this section.

Section 12(1)(i) requires a declaration of the details of “other substantial interest whether of a pecuniary nature or not, which raise or may appear to raise a material conflict of interest”. Mr Panton having placed a charge over Mrs Turner’s property certainly gives him a substantial interest in her property and, at the very least, “appears” to raise a conflict of interest.

Taken together, the above points give rise to significant concerns regarding the transaction between Mr Panton and Mrs Turner. The CSPL has taken the position that the failure by Mr Panton to (initially) file a declaration and the failure by Mrs Turner to provide the “details” of the loan do not constitute a breach of the requirements of the Act and has instead turned its focus to updating its guidance notes and possibly the legislation itself.

Why is this necessary when the legislation makes it quite clear what the requirements are and when a declaration is required?

I further wish to point out that the Act in Section 12 states that the person in public life “shall” provide details of any of the events discussed above (among others). Given the mandatory aspect of the declaration and the potential penalties, which are not insignificant, a reasonable person would have sought clarity in order to avoid falling foul of the law.

The CSPL should now reconsider its position, taking into consideration the points made above. Failure to do so would constitute a gross dereliction of duty committed by one of the most important watchdog public bodies under our Constitution.

The Act states that its primary duty is “to assist in the setting of the highest standards of integrity and competence in public life in order to ensure the prevention of corruption or conflicts of interest”.

It is my opinion that the statement issued by the CSPL falls perilously short of this ideal.

---