On 13 October the government launched the new Ethics and Integrity Commission, which supersedes the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). This solution was first proposed by Sir Peter Riddell and Professor Robert Hazell in their Constitution Unit report Trust in Public Life: Restoring the Role of Constitutional Watchdogs. They welcome the creation of the new body, but say that it will need stronger membership, more staff and resources, and a statutory foundation. 

The Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC) at last exists. It started operating on 13 October as the government announced a standards package, also covering the changes to the business appointments system for former ministers and officials, and associated changes to the Ministerial Code. The proposals make sense as first steps but they need to be strengthened, in particular by statutory backing. The government’s evolutionary approach runs the risk that the launch of a body with a grand-sounding title creates unrealistic expectations which cannot be met. 

CSPL becomes the new EIC 

The written ministerial statement by Cabinet Office Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds sets out the terms of reference and initial priorities of the EIC. This builds on an earlier statement by Pat McFadden, then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 21 July about the government’s intention to fulfil Labour’s manifesto pledge to establish the EIC. The latest announcement refers to an exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and Doug Chalmers, chair of the former Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) and now of the new EIC, setting out its specific remit and immediate priorities. The broad approach is one which we previously recommended in our 2024 report, Trust in Public Life. Replacing the CSPL with the EIC avoids confusing and wasteful duplication, while the current regulators are allowed to carry on their very different roles without creating an unwieldy super-regulator.  

The EIC, like the old CSPL, will not investigate specific complaints. It will carry on the work of CSPL in promoting the Nolan principles of public life, and undertaking inquiries into specific areas of concern. The new functions of the EIC include the responsibility to report annually to the Prime Minister on the overall health of public standards, and to lead work in the public sector on developing codes of ethical conduct. The latter role has now been given a greater importance by the recent publication of the government’s ‘Hillsborough Law’ – formally known as the Public Office (Accountability) Bill – which requires all public bodies to adopt a code of conduct to promote ethical behaviour, candour, transparency and frankness within all parts of the authority. In parallel with the legislation going through parliament, the EIC has been asked to report on how public bodies can, in the Prime Minister’s words, ‘develop, distribute and enforce such codes so that they effect meaningful cultural change, ensuring public officials act with honesty, integrity and candour at all times’. 

After the report has been published and the Hillsborough Law has received royal assent, the ministerial statement adds that ‘the EIC will act as a centre of excellence on public sector codes of conduct, providing guidance and best practice to help all public bodies put ethics and integrity at the heart of public service delivery’. This is a daunting task, going far beyond the current expertise and resources of CSPL. The risk is that the EIC may become so preoccupied with this additional task that the former CSPL’s valuable work of examining weaknesses in the overall standards landscape and recommending remedies is unavoidably downgraded.  

Need for stronger membership, staffing and resources 

This represents a big challenge for the new body in what is intended as an evolutionary transition from the old CSPL with its already stretched secretariat of just five people. It is revealing that in Chalmers’ reply to the Prime Minister, he said that ‘as soon as the Commission has the resources to do so, we will commence the piece of work you have commissioned into what makes an effective code of conduct and how codes can best be embedded into the culture of public sector organisations’. The qualification about resources matters. There is no indication in the government’s announcement about how much the EIC’s budget and secretariat will need to expand, save that in time there will be published a memorandum of understanding with the Cabinet Office. 

The shift from CSPL to EIC has been marked by a new website explaining its role. The website is understandably basic at this stage, but it is hoped that in time it can escape the constraints of the rigid Cabinet Office template and adopt a more user-friendly website like that of the Civil Service Commission. One useful function the website could perform is to provide a page explaining the standards landscape, and the role and functions of the other watchdogs. With six different bodies advising and regulating the conduct of the executive, the fragmentation is hard for outsiders to understand. This would merely require an expansion of the existing page listing the other standards bodies which the EIC will convene (following the long-established informal practice of past CSPL chairs): the network includes not just those regulating central government but also parliament, plus the lobbyists registrar, the Electoral Commission and the UK Statistics Authority. With its new responsibilities the EIC may also need to expand the network to include professional bodies and others with experience of codes of conduct.  

The government has recognised that the present governance arrangements need strengthening. The EIC currently has a chair and three additional independent members, and a campaign has just been launched to recruit three further independent members. Only one member has recent experience of local government (Ruth Dombey, former Liberal Democrat leader of the London borough of Sutton). It would also be desirable to have more members with direct experience of codes of conduct in services such as the NHS, police and education. There are currently four political members, since following the 2024 election the Liberal Democrats became the third largest party and were invited to nominate a member. The SNP nominated Ian Blackford in 2023 and he will serve out his term to mid-2026 before the EIC reverts to three political members nominated by the largest parties in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, none of the political members are current MPs, though one is a peer. When vacancies occur the parties should be invited to nominate serving MPs, preferably senior ones who carry weight in the party. 

Strengthening the independence of the EIC 

The main question is whether the new EIC will be sufficiently independent of government. Various corruption and transparency bodies have expressed concern about its dependence on the Cabinet Office for its budget and its broader sponsorship. It has been argued that parliament, via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, should have a formal role in supervision and accountability – though Commons committees have always found such direct responsibilities tricky. 

A more fundamental question is whether the EIC should remain an advisory non-departmental public body, created and dependent on prerogative powers of the executive, or whether it should be underpinned by statute. The present government, like its predecessors, has been reluctant to give statutory backing to the constitutional regulators – such as the House of Lords Appointments Commission. There is a strong case for such a change, as proposed in Lord (David) Anderson of Ipswich’s Public Service (Ethics, Integrity and Independence) Bill 2025. The vulnerability of current regulators was shown in 2022 when Boris Johnson and Liz Truss considered abolishing the post of Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests (now Standards) following the resignation of Lord (Christopher) Geidt. 

The revolving door: changes to the Business Appointment Rules 

A similar question of stronger powers, including legislation, arises with the proposals for business appointments. As previously announced, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) has been abolished and its functions transferred to the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards for ministers, and to the Civil Service Commission for the most senior civil servants and special advisers. The latter will also more closely audit the work of departments for less senior civil servants. The Independent Adviser and the Civil Service Commission have both sensibly streamlined their application of the rules, dividing appointments into Level 1 applications (unpaid work, academic positions, occasional journalism) which do not pose significant risk, and Level 2 (paid employment and consultancy) where the risk of a conflict of interest is greater.  

Sanctions for those who ignore the advice remain weak, with the only sanction for ministers found to have breached the rules being that they may be asked by the Prime Minister to repay the severance payment which they received on leaving office. The weakness of what is effectively a system of voluntary compliance was underlined yet again by Boris Johnson (a serial offender) brushing aside ACOBA’s inquiries into his claims about paid business interests he took up after leaving office. The intention is to see how the new system beds down but, while abuses by ex-ministers and officials are still relatively limited, more will have to be done to deter and punish serious breaches of the rules, and this may require legislation. 

Changes to the Ministerial Code 

A final, and so far largely unnoticed, feature of the written statement is a change to the Ministerial Code to require the Cabinet Office to advise the Prime Minister before any decision is taken to set up a public inquiry and its terms of reference are agreed. This is to ensure that decisions are ‘well judged and proportionate, and that inquiries focus on finding the right answers and help affect change’. This reflects frustration among ministers about the rising number of inquiries, their often sprawling remits, and the consequent longer time and soaring costs required to complete them. 

Overall, the proposals so far are welcome, but there are still big questions about implementation and enforcement – and about whether the Ethics and Integrity Commission can meet the expectations raised by its creation. More action will be needed before the end of the parliament. 

Trust in Public Life: Restoring the Role of Constitutional Watchdogs is available for free on our website.  

About the authors 

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

Professor Robert Hazell is the founder and first director of the Constitution Unit. 

Featured image: Nick Thomas-Symonds (Labour, Torfaen) (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) by UK House of Commons.