With its first year in office nearly complete, Labour has been slow to act on pre-election promises to enact wide-ranging reforms of the ethics regime, including the creation of a new Ethics and Integrity Commission. Peter Riddell argues that public perception matters as much as adherence to formal codes of conduct, and that if ministers do not act on this soon, they risk adding to the impression that this is a government with no clear strategy.

The government has so far been slow to implement its pre-election pledge to raise standards in public life. This failure to announce a standards strategy is both disappointing and a missed opportunity. As the anniversary of the general election approaches, there is a marked contrast between the far-reaching aspirations expressed in opposition and the limited achievements in office.

In its election manifesto, Labour promised ‘a reset in our public life; a clean-up that ensures the highest standards of integrity and honesty’. It pledged to ‘restore confidence to government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards… [and] establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent chair to ensure probity in government’.

Since July, the government has strengthened the powers of the renamed Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards on the initiation of investigations and produced a revised Ministerial Code, with new guiding principles on the acceptance and declaration of gifts and hospitality. Baroness (Margaret) Hodge of Barking was appointed to the vacant post of Anti-Corruption Champion. That is all welcome. But, otherwise, there has been just restatements of good intentions and hints of reviews, but nothing of substance. Indeed, ministers have shown no interest at all in taking forward work undertaken before the election in Whitehall on updating the Cabinet Manual, which sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the conduct and operation of government.

If you compare the performance with the list of seven proposals made in a joint — and widely backed — statement during the election campaign by the Constitution Unit, the Institute for Government and the UK Governance Project, only one has unequivocally been achieved — on the Ministerial Code and its enforcement. There has been nothing on conflicts of interest, lobbying, post-government employment, the powers of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), public appointments, and the honours system. Nor is there any sign of possible legislation to give statutory backing to the ethical regulators. The one piece of constitutional legislation, to remove the remaining hereditary peers from the House of Lords, is narrow in scope, probably meaning that one of the rare chances to undertake longer-term changes to the composition and method of appointment to the second chamber will be lost.

The apparent reasons for this inaction are both predictable and depressing. There is no sense of urgency or pressure among ministers or Labour MPs on standards issues. Many in the Labour camp still hold to the belief that public standards are a Conservative problem and that Labour does not break the rules. That is absurd and naïve, as well as politically counter-productive. Frailties in human conduct are common to members of all parties. It was always likely that some ministers and MPs would run into ethical problems, and so it has proved since last July with the departure of three ministers: Transport Secretary Louise Haigh, Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq and health minister Andrew Gwynne. Some of those resignations could have been prevented with proper due diligence and vetting before the appointment.

Admittedly, the key ministers at the centre — not just the Prime Minister but in the Cabinet Office — are over-burdened with other more pressing issues, which has delayed decisions. Moreover, there are clear signs at the heart of government of prioritising the demands of the executive and impatience with independent scrutiny by parliament and other bodies. This is also shown by the recurrent rows with the Commons Speaker over the failure to make policy announcements first in parliament, rather than in the media. And the case for scrutiny has not been helped by the patchy performance of some select committees – for instance in not asking sufficiently probing questions. This may reflect the high turnover of MPs at the last election and the inexperience of many members.

The lack of priority has been reinforced by uncertainty about what to do about the proposal for an Ethics and Integrity Commission. This was made in the last parliament by Angela Rayner (who is now Deputy Prime Minister) in an attempt to take the high ground for Labour on standards issues. But as Robert Hazell and I argued in a report in March last year, there was never clarity about what the pledge meant. Was the new Commission supposed to be a super-regulator, as some campaigners hoped? Or was it to have a more limited convening role, bringing together the existing regulators and providing leadership and transparency to public standards? As we argued, this latter option risked duplicating the work of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), now celebrating 30 years since its original report and the publication of the Nolan principles.

There are various options on how to proceed: beefing up CSPL by giving it a broader remit and possibly turning it into the Ethics and Integrity Commission; merging one or more of the existing regulators; giving them more power; as well as legislation. Giving all the existing regulators statutory backing as proposed in various private members’ bills, notably by Lord (David) Anderson of Ipswich, could be quite straightforward, though strengthening the lobbying rules and regulation of post-government appointments is more complicated. Much can anyway be done ahead of any legislation. The Prime Minister could initially strengthen bodies like HOLAC by simply writing to them with revised terms of reference.

Ministers should be wary of merging the current regulators. They perform very different functions and have different relationships with ministers and officials. This was shown after the five-year experiment from 2011 to 2016 of having the roles of Civil Service Commissioner and Public Appointments Commissioner held by one person. In practice, this double-hatting confused the distinct roles and relationships with departments, according to both the then Commissioner and several external reviews. There was no dispute when the experiment was ended.

Moreover, it is an illusion to believe that mergers will save money. The ethical/constitutional regulators already cost very little money compared with the commercial regulators as they have small staffs. And while the regulators should be separate, savings are already achieved by having the staff for some of them in one office.

The upside is clear and was explicit in the tone of the Labour manifesto. The public may believe all politicians are in it for themselves, but they still react negatively when scandals occur. Introducing safeguards may not produce an immediate bonus politically or in the polls, but it may help if strengthened regulators and Codes deter further damaging breaches.

It is not just about adherence to formal codes. Perception also matters. The rows that hit the Labour government a few weeks after it took office over freebies – clothes and tickets for sporting and musical events  –  show that even when rules on declaration were observed, the real question is how such behaviour appeared. It is not enough to say that you have obeyed the rules. There is also the common sense test. The media stories about freebies looked bad and contributed to the fall in the ratings of Labour and leading ministers.

The case for strengthening the standards framework is both to provide clarity about acceptable conduct and to reassure the public. It also makes sense politically to lay down high standards for your political opponents when they win office.

There is still time for the government to act, by producing a strategy statement in the next few weeks laying out a way forwards and a timetable for action. If it fails to do so, it risks adding to the impression that this is a government with no clear strategy.

About the author

Sir Peter Riddell is an Honorary Professor at the Constitution Unit, UCL, a former Director of the Institute for Government, and served a Public Appointments Commissioner from 2016 until 2021. Read more of Sir Peter’s commentary on this blog and his report on constitutional watchdogs on our website.

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