There is plenty of room for heated debate about whether there is, or even should be, such a universal idea as “fundamental British values”, and, if so, about what such values really are. There is a lack of widely held common religious beliefs in the UK and this diversity of faiths, agnosticism, atheism and moral views may be a significant benefit. However, is a widely accepted background framework of values a useful or even necessary tool to moderate the application of moral concepts, idealism and extremism?
BANKING WITH PREJUDICE
There is an active current debate on de-banking, where banks and other financial services organisations, refuse or close customer accounts for reasons, broadly speaking, of subjective prejudice or undesirability judgements, rather than for example because of suspected criminality such as money laundering. The infamous example is Coutts’ de-banking of Nigel Farage. The closure of his account followed a lengthy internal memorandum assessing the individual, with subjective conclusions such as that he did not share Coutts’ values or their view of Brexit, with their disapproval of other personal characteristics, leading to their decision to close his account. Outrage at many levels has led to a reconsideration by Coutts of their decision.
It seems that the decision to cancel him had the approval of the Coutts’ CEO, David Flavel, and of Alison Rose, the CEO of the NatWest group of which Coutts is part. Both have resigned due to the incident, though Alison Rose’s downfall is largely attributable to her breach of a banker’s primary obligation of confidentiality, having discussed the Farage case with a BBC journalist at a dinner. She, it is said, has many virtues, including being passionate about inclusiveness as a cultural necessity, which permeated through to the group’s value system. Being inclusive is generally good if properly applied, that is not discriminating against other people whose views or character may be disliked. Coutts however seemed to include those it liked but felt able to exclude a person they disapproved of. Should not inclusiveness lead to very little exclusion, and then only for the most exceptional reasons?
The Financial Conduct Authority is now looking into how widespread the practice of closing accounts for a multitude of reasons may be in the UK banking system. It is worth noting that, in this modern age, banks are perhaps like utilities providing essentials such as gas, water, electricity etc. Without a bank, a person in the UK can find survival difficult, and so exclusion should be only for exceptional reasons.
Is this case perhaps a stark example of the extremism of righteousness in a noble cause leading to blindness to broader principles? Most individuals have a set of values, whether intuitive or rationalised. Businesses and other organisations usually espouse a cultural position, expected behaviours and perhaps a values statement, bespoke to themselves. Normally, these value systems work largely for good. However, might there be a benefit, which might reduce the risk of their abuse or narrow application, if they were applied in a way which is consistent with a wider generally accepted set of values? Of course, they should at least reflect the law, but the law, because it restricts human freedom, tends to set a minimum standard rather than a broad higher standard.
FUNDAMENTAL BRITISH VALUES
The UK has considerable legislation which seeks to reflect widely held good principles, two important examples being The Human Rights Act 1998 and The Equality Act 2010. People can easily disagree about their detail and desirability. But these laws undoubtedly try to apply an idea of fair treatment for all in certain aspects of life, and to prevent discrimination in defined circumstances on grounds of for example sex, race or religion. Even broader are the Five Fundamental British values: but how many people can recite these, apart from those who have been in school over the last 10 years? How many people regard them as a code to be observed, even with variations and perhaps combined with other beliefs, like honesty or even putting others first? At a guess, not many.
These Values do not seem to be built into legislation, but the Department of Education in 2014 pronounced them in guidelines “Protecting fundamental British values as part of SMSC in maintained schools”. SMSC is the “spiritual, moral, cultural and mental development of pupils at a school and of society” required of schools by the Education Act. These five Values are: Democracy; The Rule of Law; Individual Liberty; Mutual Respect and Tolerance of different Faiths and Beliefs.
Those guidelines are worth a read, not being very long, as they provide a bit more detail on how schoolteachers should act in relation to espousing the Values. They are not compulsory for British people to observe. But perhaps they are a reasonable backdrop to how all individuals and organisations might consider their own behaviour, given that they seem to be accepted as a foundation of education of children in the UK and so should in due course be familiar to, and perhaps respected.
Respecting Democracy and Rule of Law incorporates awareness of other people’s rights and responsibilities, as well as one’s own. Taking Individual Liberty: that seems to include freedom to make our own choices, move about where we want, freedom to think and say what we want, subject to respecting other people’s individual liberty. Mutual Respect seems a worthwhile mantra applicable to many behavioural problems today, such as when opinions diverge on social issues like transgender or even Brexit to maintain proportionate debate. Perhaps, if Individual Liberty and Mutual Respect had been at the forefront of minds when considering the Farage case, a different conclusion would have been reached. Might they also, combined with Democracy and Rule of Law, be a good backdrop too when considering public protests and their impact? Mutual Respect and Tolerance in a way are quite sufficient values to approach most disputes in a civilised way, and yet they seem so often to be disregarded by commentators and influencers.
OVERTHINKING AND OVERCOMPLICATING
There are regular reports of organisations adopting policies about permissible language and behaviour much in the name of inclusiveness. Sometimes normal parlance is thrown up in the air, as in the case of the NHS and the Civil Service and the use of the language of sex and gender. Not all organisations adopt the same approach and so there is confusion. UK Finance, a trade body for bankers, were reported the other day as publishing replacement language for words and phrases commonly used which, in “their” opinion are non-inclusive. They would get rid of terms used as jargon in their industry like “black market” because of racial bias implications, and “sanity check” for fear of disability concerns. The things being banned have no context of giving offence. The word “black” can surely be used generally. The censorship and rewriting of literature, often classical, has received much publicity. Also, publicity over trigger warnings at universities relating to the content of historically normally accepted course work has perhaps shocked some ordinary people.
It is hard to resist the feeling that those who would do this intellectualised and Machiavellian reworking of language are seeing, and then overthinking and overcomplicating, problems of impact on minority groups, which do not exist or are being irrationally exaggerated. But, it seems, that if proposed actions can be cloaked in words like “inclusiveness” then they acquire force. Much of what is described above has little to do with true inclusiveness, which is about giving equal or fair opportunities and treatment to people who might otherwise be marginalised. It is not about turning normal everyday life upside down because of an obscure worry.
Many organisations seem to have long and tortuous policies regarding behaviour, made worse by the modern obsession with Environmental, Social and Governance, or ESG as they are known. These turn into box-ticking and virtue signalling formalities and so distort decision-making within businesses for example. The values wood is being lost in the values trees. Simple admonishments like the Five Values are potentially far more useful. If people simply adopt respect for Democracy, Rule of Law and Individual Liberty, and also demonstrate Mutual Respect and Tolerance of others as a universal behaviour, it would perhaps go a lot further towards true inclusion than a process of neutering normal words and phrases in which ordinary people see no harm. Simplicity, decency, common sense and fairness have much to recommend them, not least because most people know them when they see them.
1 comment
Excellent article.