The main party manifestos for the forthcoming general election have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this fifth post in a series on the manifestos, Lisa James looks at the parties’ policies on the standards system. What do they propose, what should they consider, and what might be missing? 

Standards scandals were a frequent feature of the 2019–24 parliament; MPs, ministers and even a Prime Minister were forced to resign amid controversy. In this context, expert bodies probed the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and suggested improvements, with major reports published by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Boardman Review into the Greensill lobbying scandal, House of Commons Standards Committee, Institute for Government, UK Governance Project and Constitution Unit. And public opinion research revealed a strong appetite for reforms to enforce high ethical standards. Coming into the 2024 general election, political parties had both the impetus to take standards reform seriously, and no shortage of recommendations for how to achieve it. 

This blogpost assesses the manifesto commitments on reforming ministerial and parliamentary standards made by the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, Green Party and Reform UK, with most of its material coming from the former two. The Scottish National Party does not address standards at Westminster; Plaid Cymru’s key pledge, on criminalising lying by politicians or candidates, was addressed in a previous post. And strikingly, given the party’s experiences in the last parliament, the Conservative manifesto makes no mention of standards at all. 

An Ethics and Integrity Commission? 

The most significant pledge in the Labour manifesto is to create a new Ethics and Integrity Commission. This policy has been well-trailed, and was the centrepiece of two major speeches by Angela Rayner in 2021 and 2023. But the manifesto gives scant detail on the commission’s remit and scope, saying only that it will have a brief to ‘ensure probity in government’. 

Labour has been clear that this policy is still under development, and says it plans to consult on the commission’s role should it form the next government. However, it seems that the party has moved away from its original idea of a ‘super-regulator’ merging multiple existing organisations, to something that will operate more like an umbrella body, with a focus on ministerial (and perhaps civil service) standards. 

There are clear benefits in avoiding the upheaval that would result from merging a group of bodies with different roles and structures. Envisaging the commission as an umbrella body also avoids the question of whether a single such regulator would concentrate too much power over elected officials in one place (in the process also becoming vulnerable to attack). This concern was raised by CSPL when the commission was first mooted. 

But a new umbrella body has not generally been called for, and its creation also poses dilemmas. The obvious question is how the Ethics and Integrity Commission will relate to CSPL, which currently considers standards-related topics across the entirety of ‘public life in the UK’. The role and remit of the new commission will need to be carefully drawn to identify areas in which it can complement, not duplicate, work that is already taking place. 

Extending regulators’ powers 

Changes are also proposed to the powers of some existing regulators. Labour and the Liberal Democrats both pledge to allow the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests to initiate their own investigations without needing prime ministerial approval – a welcome step, and one that has been widely called for. 

The Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) also looks likely to be strengthened. The regulator oversees the Business Appointment Rules, governing ministers’ and the most senior civil servants’ future job moves; but it lacks effective enforcement and sanction options. Here, Labour pledges to enforce ‘restrictions on ministers lobbying for the companies they used to regulate, with meaningful sanctions for breaching the rules’. There are broadly two ways to achieve this. The first, which the Sunak government has been pursuing, is to amend contracts for senior civil servants to require compliance with the Business Appointment Rules and ACOBA rulings, and introduce a similarly binding agreement for ministers. But this approach is fraught with complications – a pledge to claw back pensions from ministers who broke appointment rules appeared in the 2010 Conservative manifesto, but was never implemented. The second method, of legislating to give ACOBA enforcement powers, may prove simpler. 

Statutory footing 

At present, various of the UK’s standards regulators – the Independent Adviser, ACOBA, the Commissioner on Public Appointments, and the House of Lords Appointments Commission – lack a statutory footing. This is an artefact of the piecemeal development of the standards system, and has been widely criticised as leaving the bodies vulnerable to abolition, or substantial disempowerment, at a Prime Minister’s whim. Calls to put the existence and remit of these regulators into statute have often been central to expert recommendations on strengthening the system. 

The Liberal Democrats go furthest on this front, pledging to create a statutory footing for both the Independent Adviser and the Ministerial Code, as well as providing annual training for ministers. The manifesto is silent on the other regulators, but this suggests a welcome openness to legislating. 

The Labour manifesto, by contrast, does not propose a statutory footing for either the existing regulators or the new Ethics and Integrity Commission. One consideration may be speed: at Labour’s manifesto launch press conference, Keir Starmer indicated an ambition to act ‘straight away in government’. Labour will also be tempted to argue that its commitment to integrity means the regulators have nothing to fear, making legislation unnecessary. But this misses the obvious point of such legislation: to constrain potential future rule-breakers. Knowingly leaving this obvious weakness in the system risks undermining Labour’s claim to be serious about strengthening the standards regime. 

Appointments 

The most ambitious commitment in this area comes again from the Liberal Democrats, who commit to establishing a ‘rigorous, transparent and independent process’ for ‘significant public roles’, including confirmatory votes for select committees. This reflects recommendations made by CSPL and others, who have argued that greater independence in the appointment process for standards regulators is necessary to safeguard their independence. The Prime Minister’s ability to hand-pick the Independent Adviser has been particularly criticised (the Liberal Democrats pledge to give parliament this power). 

Labour, again, makes no commitments in this area. A key question is how the independent chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission will be chosen. For the sake of speed, it may be tempting to install a trusted ally (either overtly, or through a rapid and half-hearted open competition). But this would be a mistake if the party wants to ensure that the new body has credibility. 

Lobbying, transparency and corruption 

Labour’s commitments on lobbying are concentrated in its proposed rules on second jobs for MPs (discussed below), and strengthening the Business Appointment Rules. 

The Liberal Democrats and Greens both pledge to strengthen the transparency rules relating to lobbying, though the Greens offer no further detail. The Liberal Democrats make a series of more concrete commitments, pledging to publish data on ministers’ interests more frequently, and to require reporting of lobbying that takes place remotely (e.g. by email or instant message). This latter commitment reflects a more general desire to update transparency requirements to reflect modern technologies. The party plans to require that ministers’ relevant WhatsApp messages are archived by government departments, as is currently the case with emails – spurred perhaps by the Covid inquiry’s difficulties in accessing WhatsApp messages. 

Covid also provides the context for Labour’s policy on corruption, with the party planning to appoint a fixed-term Covid Corruption Commissioner as well as ‘end the link between access to ministers and an inside track for public contracts’. An Anti-Corruption Unit with powers to ‘investigate past and future scandals’ is Reform UK’s sole standards-related pledge.  

Standards in parliament 

The key commitment on parliamentary standards is found in Labour’s manifesto. The party pledges to set up a Modernisation Committee for the House of Commons with a remit to – among other things – raise ethical standards in parliament. It is unclear what topics the committee might address, apart from second jobs for MPs – where Labour supports an immediate ban on ‘paid advisory or consultancy roles’, and plans to task the committee with finding a way to ‘prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country’. Also to be seen is how the Modernisation Committee will relate to the existing House of Commons Standards Committee which, as well as assessing individual cases of alleged wrongdoing, is currently charged with recommending changes to the MPs’ Code of Conduct. Under Commons standing orders, that committee is guaranteed to be chaired by an MP from the official opposition.  

The Liberal Democrats pledge to extend the recall system ‘to empower constituents to recall MPs who commit sexual harassment’. They also commit to a ‘zero-tolerance’ approach to bullying and harassment at Westminster. 

Labour’s plans for Lords reform also hint at changes to the standards regime, with the party pledging to make it easier to expel ‘disgraced members’. It is unclear whether it aims to do this via legislation, or by supporting moves to amend the House’s standing orders. 

Conclusion 

The manifestos suggest that the standards scandals of recent years have cut through, and many parties are seeking to respond to at least some of the problems highlighted. 

There is less clear agreement, however, on how these problems might be dealt with. The Conservative manifesto, remarkably, ignores standards entirely. The Green Party and Reform UK make only a small number of commitments, which lack detail and do not amount to meaningful reform. The Liberal Democrats engage most thoroughly with the recommendations made by parliamentary committees and expert bodies. 

Labour has picked up these recommendations in some key areas. But it is notable that the party says nothing about some important topics, not least a statutory footing for the regulators. The creation of a new Ethics and Integrity Commission may make a public statement about Labour’s commitment to strengthening standards, but it is not immediately clear why the creation of a new body will solve the problems that have been identified with the existing regime. Labour will need to think carefully about what it wants the commission to achieve, and how its creation can strengthen, and not simply complicate, the standards system. 

This is the latest in a series of posts offering analysis of the parties’ manifestos, and the most recent in a broader collection of posts on the 2024 general election. A future post will assess the prospects and options for Labour’s proposed Ethics and Integrity Commission. Sign up via the box in the left-hand sidebar to receive email notifications when a new post goes live. 

About the author 

Lisa James is a Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit.