CONFLICT OF
INTEREST
latest October 27th 2008
MARCH 05 2007
Once again we
have the media getting excited about 'conflict of interest', this time
in the case of the Attorney General. It is taken for granted these days
that a conflict of interest is something to be avoided;.that no
individual can make a judgement on anything unless they are independent
from all parties to such a degree that it could be doubtful that they
understood the merits of any case.
Yet the strength
of the office of Attorney General is precisely that he is privy, as an
insider and as an expert, to all the pressures of the law and of
politics. The government must have supreme legal advice, the justice
system must have a representative who is privy to matters at the heart
of government. If we are not to have every legal decision put to a jury
or to the privy council it must be put to a judge. The best way to make
an informed judgement is to get the facts and the understanding of them
into one human head with the task of coming to a decision. Otherwise,
all we have is an argument, which is then voted on by people who are
less informed and less expert
More fundamental
still is the function of conflict of interest in every realm of human
existence. Conflict of interest is what life is all about. Resolving
conflicts of interest is what we are all here for. The judgment of
Solomon resolved the argument between two mothers claiming the same
child. Every motorist resolves conflict of interest between themselves
and at least one other many times on a journey. Matters of law and the
interpretation of laws, laws which have indeed been established by the
votes of elected representatives which brings then 'into the ball
park', are finally matters of judgment. The judgment may in hindsight
be seen to have been rightor wrong, as in the case of a cricket umpire
when there is a video recording, or it may be a judgment that stands
unchallenged on the basis that it is given by a person chosen for that
position.
Such is the
office of Attorney General and, having been sure to select a person of
character, intelligence, experience and honesty who, unrestricted in
access, can consult others on any technical point of politics or law
before reaching a decison, it is sensless not to accept their opinion
on the matters they have been prepared by public and personal history
to pronounce.
OCTOBER 27th 2008
Today there are complaints that when Peter Mandleson as EU Trade
Commissioner meets socially with a Russian billionaire aluminium mogul,
there is a conflict of interest and should the meeting take place with
the businessman as host, this conflict of interest inflates to the
proportion of a bribe, accepted in terms of hospitality. Once again the
idea is floated and assumed as valid that a conflict of interest is
intrinsically wrong. On this basis, if Gordon Brown made friends with
Nicolas Sarkozy
while Gordon was PM and Sarkozy was President, this would present a
really appalling conflict of interest. I would personally hope that an
EU Trade Commissioner should spend as much time in private with the
billionaires of industry as they need, as it is there they will learn
what is going on.
We have to grow up and realise that conflict of interest is what life
is all about, so the people we elect as MPs, and those who are accepted
by their colleagues as leaders, are exactly those who know how to
handle conflicts of interest. They need to be able to weigh things up
and act in the national interest, in the regional interest and in the
global interest. If, in the course of this, certain individual's
personal interest is served, that should only be because those so
benefited have aligned their interests with their fellows, their
country and world well-being. Conflict of interest is not something to
be swep under the carpet, or funked or denied. It is what we should be
facing and dealing wth. That is what judgment is all about.
Today we are deafened by the outpourings of people who in oprevious
generations were unused to exercising judgment. They were part of a
more hierarchical society where they did what they were told. Now they
have the privilege of a democracy enhanced by modern communications,
mass media and interactivity. With that goes responsibility. So far we
have blown it financially by panic and mutual recrimination and a
crisis of confidence. If we
cannot have confidence in leaders to handle conflict of interest, we
shall blow it poilitically.
.