Public officials should never benefit from their own decisions

There has been a damning report into malpractice by officials in Glasgow City Council in the way they changed rules which benefitted them financially. The report says that matters were not handled in a manner that lives up to the standards expected in public life in Scotland, “in particular selflessness, integrity and objectivity”.

However, no action has been taken and yet again what has emerged is that 'lessons must be learned for the future'. Is this really sufficient to retain public trust in the manner in which public officials spend – and profit from – taxpayer resources?

Fundamentally, it finds that “The restructure report appears to have been approved by some individuals who then benefited from its proposals” and that “the absence of a clear document trail, setting out the decisions and approvals required for the restructure report, including the consideration of potential conflicts of interest and the need to involve councillors, is concerning”.

But is this anywhere near enforcing the standards that the public would actually expect from officials? These statements suggest that if the five officials (who between them benefitted personally to the tune of £1,075,302) had declared an interest and got sign-off from a councillor it would all have been acceptable.

Is that the message this report is meant to send out? Senior officials in the Scottish public sector can knowingly change the rules in a way that opens up a door for them to receive a million pounds of personal profit and then walk straight through that door – so long as they confess that they may walk through the door at some point?

The vast majority of those working in Scotland's public sector are very closely monitored for every penny they spend. We hear constant claims that wage restraint in the public sector is a necessity. The fundamental principle that no-one should be able to set rules that benefit them directly has been sidestepped in this report, presented mostly as a talking point for future consideration.

There is already a strong sense that Scotland's senior public sector management class has gone feral. We have seen questionable behaviours from senior staff and governors in the NHS Fife industrial tribunal, the 'marking of our own homework' by the SQA, the excessive pay and perks packages uncovered in the Water Industry Commission, mismanagement at Dundee University...

There have been years of concern about what appear to be conflicts of interest in the 'revolving door' of senior public sector management and countless occasions in which inquiries have come to damning conclusions but somehow manage to skip past remedy in favour of 'learning lessons for the future'.

This is happening during a period where trust in public institutions is falling precipitously. When five officials can create bespoke rules that benefit them personally to the tune of a million pounds, can pass it with no oversight and yet, when this is uncovered, no sanctions are imposed, is the public not right to be sceptical about probity?

Perhaps the bigger question is how we have created a structure and culture in the Scottish public sector where it is routinely assumed that senior officials can hive off committees or subgroups (or in this case just themselves) to agree lucrative financial packages way out of proportion to what ordinary public sector workers receive.

Why are public pay scales imposed on staff but appear to break down when senior leaders are involved? Why are senior leaders allowed to oversee the process of setting their own financial packages in the first place? Why is there discretion at all in what a public sector official gets paid?

Scotland should remove the temptation from senior public sector leaders by imposing a national-level pay scale that must be adhered to. Senior leaders have for decades been claiming that they are 'special people' with special skills which are highly valued in the market place and so they must be generously rewarded in return.

But this perception is their own and only their own and to have your perception be the basis for allocating yourself money that has been raised for the benefit of all citizens is contrary to any sense of public sector responsibility.

The report into this affair calls for culture change. Common Weal believes that a second chamber of the Scottish Parliament of ordinary people selected through a system of sortition and empowered to stand as judge over our public servants is the best way to create that culture change.