Raising standards in public life: the case for legislation – and soon

All prime ministers say they care about maintaining high standards of conduct in government. They would say that, wouldn’t they? They’re hardly going to say: “We’re not that bothered about standards, just trust us, we’ve got more important things to be getting on with”.

But words are not enough. Politicians are rightly judged by what they do, not just what they say.

Of course, the government does have lots of other important things to do. But standards in public life are not an optional extra, to be dealt with “when time allows”. They go to the heart of how the country is governed – how decisions are taken, appointments made, contracts awarded, and the relationship between politicians and the public. And as the Labour government is discovering, rows about (supposedly) poor standards can be a major distraction from the things it really does want to get on with.

There is a high level of consensus about the core of what is meant by high standards in public life. Most of us want our politicians and leaders not to be corrupt, not to take bribes, not to give jobs or favours to their mates just because they are their mates – to take decisions in the interests of the country, not their own private interests. The Nolan Principles – selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership – are well established and widely accepted. All recent prime ministers have issued a Ministerial Code embodying these principles – though Keir Starmer is yet to publish his version.

But again words on a page are not enough. What matters is whether the principles are complied with in practice. That requires detailed rules, and effective mechanisms for interpreting, applying and enforcing them.

There are proposals for change – but the government’s response has been underwhelming

Various suggestions have been made for improving the system of standards. They included seven steps to restore trust in government ethics, recommended jointly by the IfG, the UK Governance Project, chaired by Dominic Grieve KC (of which I am a member) and the UCL Constitution Unit.  These covered the regulation of ministerial conduct, conflicts of interest and lobbying, post-government employment, appointments to the House of Lords, other public appointments and honours.

The government’s response has so far been underwhelming. The Labour manifesto promised “a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission (EIC), with its own independent chair, to ensure probity in government’ in order to help “restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards”. But we are yet to see any details of the EIC, what form it will take or what it will do. As mentioned, the prime minister has yet to issue a Ministerial Code. He has said he wants to allow his adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Laurie Magnus, greater freedom over investigations into ministers’ conduct (previous prime ministers have retained a veto). But again details are scant.

Legislation could ensure lasting changes to structures, culture and behaviour 

The government would be well advised to get a move on. A properly functioning EIC could look at the problem areas, identify where the rules need to be tightened up or clarified, and where the relevant structures for overseeing compliance need to be strengthened. It might also help to draw some of the political heat from the day-to-day rows about appointments, conflicts and freebies.

Some improvements could no doubt be made without legislation. For example, Keir Starmer can voluntarily commit not to overrule decisions of his independent adviser on ministers’ interests (as he has indicated), or advice from the House of Lords Appointments Commission on the grant of life peerages.

But if the government is serious about raising standards it should introduce primary legislation. This would no doubt send a powerful message, going beyond warm words. But it would do much more than that. Of course, no legislation can be truly permanent – any future parliament could repeal it. But as things stand, many of the arrangements could be changed by prime ministerial whim. Legislation by contrast could make lasting, substantive changes to structures, culture and behaviour.

There are precedents for legislation when the existing system for regulating standards has proved inadequate. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 among other things introduced new requirements to declare the source of donations to political parties, as part of the then Labour government’s commitment to “clean up politics” and “end sleaze”. The MPs’ expenses scandal around 2009 led to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 and the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

For the rules on standards to bite, they need to be overseen and enforced by independent bodies with their own staff and resources. That can’t truly happen if the bodies running the investigations or making the decisions are essentially adjuncts of the Cabinet Office, or dependent on the government they are meant to be overseeing. It can’t happen if staff, money or accommodation can be withdrawn at a moment’s notice. Primary legislation can put the relevant bodies on a sustainable basis, specify how their members are to be appointed (and removed), guarantee their independence, and provide for their funding by parliament.

Legislation is also needed if such bodies are to have legally enforceable powers – to obtain information, insist on answers to their questions, and compel compliance with their findings, if necessary in the courts. Voluntary co-operation only gets you so far. For example, under the current system, if a minister or official chooses to ignore rulings on future employment, in practice there is not much the Advisory Committee of Business Appointments (ACOBA) or anyone else can do about it.

Such legislation need not be long or complex. It need not even be politically controversial. But it could make a real difference. And the sooner the better.