Tag Archives: public appointments

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 →

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 →

The unanswered questions posed by Labour’s plan for a new Ethics and Integrity Commission 

Posted on by

Labour’s manifesto proposes a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission to oversee and enforce ethical standards in government, but offers no real detail on the remit and powers of this new body, or how it will fit into the wider standards landscape. Peter Riddell outlines some of the difficulties in designing the new Commission and argues that it is crucial that the country’s constitutional watchdogs are both independent of government and accountable to parliament.  

The familiar landscape of standards in public life could be about to change. The Labour manifesto proposes to ‘establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC), with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government’. This is a major part of its aim ‘to restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards’. The pressures for changes in the standards regime have only been increased by the latest scandal over allegations of insider betting by mainly Conservative candidates and party officials on the election date. 

Yet while the direction of change is clear, there is still considerable uncertainty about how the new EIC will work, what its powers and remit will be, what its relations will be both with the main constitutional watchdogs and, in particular, with the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). There is a need for much greater clarity if the new arrangements are to work. Labour has also made separate proposals on the powers of some of the regulators. 

There are all kinds of models for an EIC. Public comments by Shadow Cabinet member Nick Thomas-Symonds before the election indicate that Labour has rejected a super-regulator combining some or all of the current constitutional watchdogs, which anyway perform very different functions. This points to an umbrella organisation, which would be headed by a new independent chair. It is important for public credibility and accountability that this new chair is chosen as a result of an open public competition which could be held in the late summer or early autumn after the role and remit of the EIC have become clearer.  

Continue reading →

The (un)Conservative effect on the constitution: 2010-2024

Posted on by

This week sees the publication of Anthony Seldon and Tom Egerton’s new book, The Conservative Effect 2010-2024: 14 Wasted Years?. The book reviews the record of the Conservative Party in government across various topics. Constitution Unit Director Meg Russell contributed the book’s chapter on ‘Government, Parliament and the Constitution’, and summarises it here. 

A sustained period of Conservative government would normally be expected to usher in constitutional stability. But the reverse applied to most of the period 2010-24. During this time constitutional controversies were rarely far from the news, partly due to deliberately planned changes, but more often to radically shifting conventions and political behaviour. The direction of change was also very far from consistent. The initial coalition period primarily saw pressures towards greater constitutional pluralism, though Liberal Democrat ambitions were often held back by Cameron’s Conservatives. Later, any prospect of calm under single-party government was quickly punctured by Brexit, which eventually brought into question almost every aspect of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. Boris Johnson’s populist approach, in particular, was characterised by wholesale disregard for constitutional norms.  

In 2012 Philip Norton emphasised that Conservative traditions valued constitutional conventions, parliament, and a strong government tempered by checks and balances, and might contemplate change that would ‘maintain, not destroy, the system’. This suggests that, if one commonality can be discerned across the 2010-24 period of constitutional extremes, it is its largely unconservative nature. 

Continue reading →

Parliamentary reform in the 2024 party manifestos 

Posted on by

The main party manifestos have now been published, allowing exploration and comparison of their constitutional proposals. In this second post in a series on the manifestos, Meg Russell looks at the parties’ commitments on parliamentary reform. What are they promising, and what are the prospects for these proposed changes? 

Yesterday on this blog, Lisa James reviewed the constitutional proposals presented by the political parties in their 2024 general election manifestos. Unsurprisingly, parliamentary reform is a key area that appears in several of them. Most parties include aspirations to reform the House of Lords, and some make other commitments on the House of Commons, or the overall power of parliament. This second post in the Constitution Unit’s manifesto series reviews these proposals, reflecting on their origins, merits, and prospects for implementation. It starts with the power of parliament as a whole, before moving to the Commons, and then the Lords. 

The power of parliament 

It is primarily the Liberal Democrats that give space to parliament’s overall place in the constitution – an area subject to significant recent controversy. The Brexit referendum of 2016 led to fierce clashes in parliament, and unusually high-profile arguments about both parliamentary procedure and the limits of the government’s prerogative power. Brexit also raised new questions about parliament’s powers over policy matters that returned to the UK following its exit from the European Union. 

Continue reading →