Before the election, Labour promised to make broad changes to the standards regime. Yet two months after the election, progress on many aspects of their plans has been slow, and the new government has already been accused of ‘cronyism’ and other ethical missteps. Peter Riddell argues that urgent action to create new safeguards (including legislation) is required, and that ministers cannot brush aside criticism on the grounds that their intentions are good.

The government is in danger of missing an opportunity to strengthen standards in public life. After more than 10 weeks in office, there have been little more than vague statements about future good intentions, and self-inflicted and unnecessary problems such as over a series of appointments of political allies to the civil service. 

Before the election, Labour promised a fresh approach to standards, focusing on creating a new Ethics and Integrity Commission, giving the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests full powers to initiate investigations into ministerial conduct, and tighter enforcement of rules on post-Whitehall employment. This was part of a broader constitutional reform package that included planned changes to the ways in which parliament operates, and the devolution settlement. Before and during the campaign, there was widespread debate about how to rebuild trust in public institutions, notably the seven point plan for early action jointly unveiled on 24 June by the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and the UK Governance Project (a commission chaired by former Attorney General Dominic Grieve). 

The initial signs from the new government were promising: on his first day in office Keir Starmer met Laurie Magnus, the Independent Adviser, to demonstrate his commitment to high standards for ministers. But, since then, there has been nothing apart from non-committal parliamentary answers. A revised Ministerial Code normally appears very early in a new parliament and an agreed draft was ready soon after the election, but it is apparently stuck somewhere in the system. That affects the announcement about the Independent Adviser’s role. 

On other matters, such as strengthening the powers of individual constitutional watchdogs— by, for instance, putting them on a statutory basis — silence. Similarly, ministers have said work is under way on the Ethics and Integrity Commission promised in Labour’s manifesto, but there does not appear to be any agreement on what it should do — issues which I discussed in a blogpost published during the campaign. 

One explanation seems to be that standards issues are not seen as an immediate priority—one of the government’s core missions — in the way that removing the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords is. Underlying that is the belief – which I have heard from a number of people — that Labour’s leadership team believe they are ‘the good guys’ and they will, almost by definition, not abuse standards, unlike their predecessors. Hence, there is no urgency about strengthening safeguards; it not an issue for the current session of parliament, or even perhaps the first term. 

This view is naïve and a serious misjudgement for four reasons. First, trust in our political system is fragile and badly needs rebuilding: the new government can only do that by taking action to strengthen standards, as well as reforming public services. Second, something, or someone, will do something wrong — as always happens, such is political life and human nature. Third, it is very short-sighted to behave in a way which you would criticise your opponents for doing. You reinforce the perception that politicians are all the same, all in it for themselves and their friends. Fourth, it is, above all, in ministers’ self-interest to act quickly and decisively. They came to office amid high expectations that they were going to be different and better, and they are already caught up in charges of bad behaviour and sleaze. Damage to their standing is already happening. The Prime Minister can only address this is by being open and by bringing in a strong framework of standards. 

Moreover, by failing to act, the government will also create, or reinforce, a loophole which can be exploited by a future government. That is the real objection to some of the appointments of outsiders with political links to senior civil service positions without an open competition, however individually worthy they are. The key principle should remain for any civil servant: could they serve a minister of another party with equal commitment? It would have been far better to have appointed some as special advisers or policy advisers, or to have held quick competitions. In this respect, the desire to hold down the number of special advisers and to fix a low maximum to their pay looks short-sighted. As it is, the charge of cronyism can be made, even if it is over-blown, and it has been made much easier for a future government to bring in a larger number of politically linked outsiders and to weaken the non-partisan position of the civil service. 

Instead, the government should recognise the importance of bringing in constitutional safeguards and to behave accordingly. It is no longer sufficient, or credible, to believe that you are the good guys. Transparent rules that are enforced are necessary. 

Strengthening standards costs nothing in terms of additional public expenditure. Nor is there any need for complicated and time-consuming legislation. The tripartite joint statement in June mentioned above outlined a series of steps, most of which can be, taken quickly, such as: 

1. Publish a new Ministerial Code with more effective means of enforcement; 

2. Tighten the arrangements for ministers and senior public officials to identify, manage and report conflicts of interest; 

3. Build a clearer, more consistent and transparent system to regulate lobbying of ministers, senior public officials and special advisers; 

4. Strengthen regulation of post-Whitehall employment with sanctions for non-compliance; 

5. Ensure that appointments to the Lords are made on merit, to people who can make a real contribution to the work of the House; 

6. Make the process of public appointments more rigorous and timely, with greater independence on assessment panels; 

7. Strengthen the independence of the honours system and end the practice of prime ministerial personal patronage. 

Most of these proposals could be introduced easily and quickly by the Prime Minister giving a new instruction to the existing constitutional watchdogs. However, the joint statement argued that in order to underpin the independence of the ethics and integrity system and to protect against arbitrary change by a future government, a short bill should be introduced to give statutory backing to the constitutional watchdogs and to the Ministerial Code. Such a bill is not going to be proposed in this first parliamentary session, but a commitment could be made to bring in such legislation next year. Crucially, the non-statutory measures could be announced before Christmas. For instance, the bill to remove the remaining hereditary peers which has already been introduced in the Commons could, and should, be complemented by action to strengthen the House of Lords Appointments Commission, extending its remit to cover suitability as well as propriety. 

Robert Hazell – who founded the Constitution Unit – and I discussed the position of the main constitutional watchdogs in a report published in March, examining what needs to be done, what can be done quickly, and what requires statutory action. The striking point, as recognised in the joint statement, is how much can be done to enhance their role and functions without primary legislation. 

More thought needs to be given to the remit and powers of the proposed Ethics and Integrity Commission, especially its relations with the other constitutional watchdogs. As I have discussed before, there is a risk of possible duplication with the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in overseeing the standards landscape and championing the Nolan principles of public life. 

Above all, the controversies of recent weeks over a number of appointments to the civil service have shown that ministers cannot just brush aside criticism on the grounds that their intentions are good. Charges of cronyism will stick unless safeguards are put in place. 

About the author 

Sir Peter Riddell is an Honorary Professor of the Constitution Unit at UCL and a former Director of the Institute for Government and Public Appointments Commissioner from 2016 until 2021. 

Featured image: Keir Starmer (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Prime Minister.