Peter Riddell discusses the publication of the updated Ministerial Code which he says is welcome, though overdue, and is only the first step towards a more wide-ranging programme to strengthen the framework for standards in public life.

The Ministerial Code is the guideline to standards of behaviour expected of ministers and has become the reference point whenever allegations are made about misconduct by ministers in office. It has been overseen since 2006 by an Independent Adviser (originally on Ministers’ Interests but now renamed as the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards). The Code has been a mishmash of standards of conduct and advice on the conduct of everyday government business, reflecting its origins as Questions of Procedure for Ministers (its name until 1997). This confusion has now been sorted out as the Code is now in three sections: Standards of Conduct, Ministers’ Interests, and Ministers’ Procedures of Government.

The other major general plus is the prominence given to the Seven Principles of Public Life (the Nolan principles) in both the Prime Minister’s Foreword and in the first chapter on standards, though there was a brief mention of them in the last Prime Minister’s version of the Code in December 2022. These principles are inevitably general but leave no doubt as to what unacceptable conduct is, especially when supplemented by more specific codes in particular areas such as public appointments, the civil service and special advisers. This clarity is a gain after some of the ambiguity in the final version of the Boris Johnson premiership.

The latest version of the Code also introduces greater transparency over the receipt by ministers of gifts and hospitality. It accepts that some hospitality is part of ministers’ official lives in representing the government, attending functions and meeting outside groups, but makes clear that ministers should not accept any hospitality, gifts or services which might, or which might appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an inappropriate obligation. A key change is to align the disclosure requirements on ministers with those already required of other MPs, with declarations of hospitality and gifts on a monthly basis, with their value clearly stated, rather than quarterly as until now. There has, however, been no change in declarations of ministerial meetings, which will continue to happen quarterly.

Moreover, as Doug Chalmers, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, pointed out in a blog this week: ‘conduct that is within the rules and transparent may not be seen to be in line with the (Nolan) principles’. In short, obeying the rules on transparency is only part of the story.

The other main change is in the powers of the Independent Adviser, as widely advocated by various commentators before the election and proposed in the Labour manifesto. Following the important changes of May 2022, the Prime Minister has given up his remaining veto power over investigations into alleged conduct. The Adviser will be able to initiate inquiries in cases where they think an alleged breach of the Code warrants further investigation—merely informing the Prime Minister of the decision. Prior to this new version of the Code, the Adviser could only investigate allegations against a minister with the Prime Minister’s consent.

The Adviser will also have increased access to evidence and, following the completion of an investigation, may advise the Prime Minister on whether a breach of the Code has occurred and may recommend what sanction should be considered. It remains up to the Prime Minister to decide on a sanction and whether a minister remains in the government. The new Code enshrines the sensible view that not all breaches of the Code require a ministerial resignation.  Among the options mentioned where the Prime Minister wishes to retain a minister are ‘a public apology, remedial action or removal of ministerial salary for a period’. Such a sliding scale avoids binary positions of resignation or not, though it may not still prevent opposition and media clamour.

The Code says the Adviser may require that any advice on an investigation is published in ‘a timely manner’. This is still too vague—like the classic Whitehall response to a query about an announcement to say it will be ‘soon’. This could usefully be tightened up to a specific time.

Overall, the changes to the Independent Adviser’s powers might have partially eased the positions of Alex Allan and Lord (Christopher) Geidt, who resigned as Advisers in 2020 and 2022 as a result of the behaviour and decisions of Boris Johnson – though no rules can totally prevent a Prime Minister disregarding their spirit if he is the ultimate arbiter.

There is no mention of any change in the method of appointing the Adviser, which is made without open competition and is outside the Public Appointments Code, even though Laurie Magnus, the current Adviser, was only chosen after a series of interviews, more than would have been required for a public appointment made in the usual way. It would strengthen the Adviser’s position if they were picked after a normal competitive process.

There is also no mention of the proposal made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its November 2021 report Standards Matter 2 to have a statutory requirement that the Prime Minister should publish a Code, or suggestions by other bodies that the Code should approved by parliament.

Overall, the revised Ministerial Code and the Adviser’s new powers are a definite step forward. It remains puzzling why they took so long to publish, since drafts were being considered in Whitehall in July, around the time of the general election, and the changes are  largely uncontentious. In both 2007 and 2010 the Code was published within less than a month of a change of Prime Minister, though it took two months in 2022 and nearly five months in 2016. The recent logjam in Downing Street decision making may have been at least partly to blame. The delay has not been in the government’s own interests since ministers have been on the defensive on standards in the wake of the controversy of freebies and appointments of allies to civil service posts.

Moreover, action on the Ministerial Code and its independent implementation was just one of seven proposals made in a joint statement during the election campaign by the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and the UK Governance Project, reiterated in a letter to the Times on 1 November. The other proposals cover lobbying, and conflicts of interests; business appointments after leaving office, changes in the way the House of Lords of Appointments Commission considers nominations for merit and contribution; more rigorous and independent public appointments; and greater independence in the award of honours. Many changes could be introduced immediately as a first step, as discussed in a report which Professor Robert Hazell and I produced in March. The joint statement rightly stressed the importance of legislation to underpin the changes, notably to entrench the independence of the various constitutional watchdogs.

Moreover, the government has yet to clarify how it intends to implement its pledge to introduce an Ethics and Integrity Commission and its relations with the existing regulators and with the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A period of consultation on options is possible and desirable to avoid duplication – and anyway there will not be legislation in this session.

Now that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Commons has at last been set up, there is a chance for public scrutiny of the government’s intentions.

About the author

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

Featured image: Sir Keir Starmer MP, The Prime Minister (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK Parliament.