Category Archives: constitutional standards and the health of democracy

Resigning matters: how and when should someone give up public office?

Posted on by

Holding ministerial office or leading a public body involves challenges and duties that do not exist in the private sector. Using recent examples of high profile resignations by public office holders, former Commissioner for Public Appointments Peter Riddell argues that although it is rightly difficult to remove some public servants, it is also incumbent on them to know in what circumstances they should offer to resign. When they do not then do so, it should be difficult – but not impossible – for a minister to remove a person when confidence in their ability to fulfil their functions has been lost.

Continue reading →

The new Ministerial Code must be the first step in a wider programme to strengthen standards in public life

Posted on by

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.

Continue reading →

MPs’ role in the constitution

Posted on by

MPs play a central role in all democratic systems, but this is particularly true in the UK given its tradition of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’. With judges unable to strike down Acts of Parliament for unconstitutionality, MPs have a key role in constitutional protection. Like MPs elsewhere, they also have responsibilities for upholding the constitution and democracy in many other ways, most obviously through holding the government to account, and representing the public, but also, for example, through maintaining standards of political debate. Meg Russell and Lisa James summarise these various important roles. 

Members of parliament are central political actors in all democratic systems. Legislatures are highly visible institutions, and MPs have key roles representing citizens, debating key policy matters, scrutinising the executive and approving major changes to the law. The legislature is at the heart of any functioning national democracy. 

Hence MPs routinely have important roles within the constitution. But some of their wider roles and responsibilities in upholding and protecting the constitution are less often spoken about. In an age of populism and ‘democratic backsliding’ these deserve reflection. As sadly seen in various countries, MPs are important gatekeepers whose consent can facilitate the dismantling of democratic norms and institutions. But where they stand firm, they can be bulwarks against decline. 

Continue reading →

Government standards: the need for reform

Posted on by

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. 

Continue reading →