[Technical difficulty—Editor]. I adverted to this obliquely before, and it's very helpful to be invited to focus on it more, because I think it is likely to be helpful to you.
This is in chapter 2 of our code. Again, this is for the benefit of researchers later. Chapter 2 of our guide to the rules has a paragraph 6 called “The test of relevance”, which I will read to you, if I may. It's very short: “The test of relevance is whether those interests might reasonably be thought by others to influence his or her actions or words as a Member.” That is a very short, very concise test. What we're asking members to do is put themselves in the mind of somebody who's listening to their words or watching their actions and then ask themselves if they think they're being actuated by their financial interest.
I hope that one of the useful things in my coming here to speak to you today is that I can attest that this works in practice extremely well—but not in every case, as sometimes it doesn't go right. When members ask me for advice, I remind them that it is in the first instance their responsibility to apply this test. I'm not there to do it for them in the first instance. The whole point about a principles-based approach is to get them to acknowledge responsibility for their own behaviour and the efficacy, the soundness and the propriety of their own behaviour.
I can help them sometimes by putting myself in that objective position and saying, “Draw this line between dot A and dot B and ask yourself this: If you were watching somebody, would you be concerned that they might have this interest?” We deal with that by declaration, in part, because very often an interest ceases to be an inimical interest in terms of propriety and ethics if it's out in the open.
I won't expound on that more now, but maybe you or a colleague will invite me to in one of your future questions.