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.
Continue readingOver a year after taking office, Keir Starmer’s government has announced its long-awaited Ethics and Integrity Commission, as well as other changes to how civil servants and ministers are regulated. Peter Riddell believes that the package of reforms is a positive one, but that the lack of a statutory footing inhibits enforcement. He also argues that these changes should represent a milestone, not a finish line, and that further action should be taken before the end of the current parliament.
Continue reading
Today the Unit published Monitor 89, providing an analysis of constitutional events over the last four months. This post by Alan Renwick and Meg Russell, which also serves as the issue’s lead article, highlights welcome action by the government on devolution, commitment to the rule of law and the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords, but calls for stronger action on wider Lords reform, progress on the promised Ethics and Integrity Commission, and action on the pre-election pledge to strengthen parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. It warns that the governments of the UK must strive to maintain healthy checks and balances, avoid polarisation, and foster open political discourse at a time when events in the US are showing the dangers of not doing so.
Continue readingPeter 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
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