The government’s response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life

The government rejects the need for a new compliance function, saying that responsibilities are distributed among various senior leaders, including ministers and permanent secretaries.

The government says it will “clarify the distribution of formal accountabilities across this system”.

The government rejects this recommendation, stating that it does not believe these regulators or their codes should be established in legislation. The government argues that “the position between the executive and parliament in relation to these scrutiny bodies is carefully balanced… placing scrutiny bodies into primary legislation risks drawing the courts into political matters that are the sole purview of the government”.

The government rejects this recommendation, noting that the chairs of ACOBA, HOLAC and CSPL already go through this process, and the commissioner for public appointments goes through a similar process. The government argues that the independent adviser on ministerial interests should remain a direct appointment by the prime minister. It does not express a view on the registrar for consultant lobbyists. 

The government rejects this recommendation, saying that “the government does not believe that these appointments require an extra layer of independent oversight” compared to the chairs of other high-profile regulators and bodies.

But the government does accept the need for sufficient time for pre-appointment scrutiny.

The government rejects this recommendation, saying it “does not believe the ministerial code should be enshrined in primary legislation”.

The government rejects the recommendation to change the structure of the ministerial code, “noting the advantages of providing a single source document for all aspects of ministerial work and conduct.” The government does note that the terms of reference for the adviser already require the prime minister to consult the adviser before making any change to the code.

The government rejects these recommendations, noting that under the current terms of reference “the independent adviser may now initiate an investigation having consulted the prime minister.”

The government notes that the prime minister “has sole responsibility for the organisation of His Majesty’s government” and therefore is the only one who can determine whether the ministerial code has been breached.

This had already been implemented in the current ministerial code, which the government notes in the response.

The government agrees with the recommendation on conflicts of interest, noting that it published a “model policy for departments on declaration and management of outside interests” in July 2022. The government is providing training to departments on how to apply this guidance.

The government is not making any change to the whistleblowing processes in government, noting simply that “Civil Service HR undertakes continuous improvement of whistleblowing processes”.
 

The government rejects this recommendation, arguing that the July 2022 policy on conflicts of interest deals with the concerns behind the recommendation without the need for new rules. 

The government rejects this recommendation, saying it sees no need for a formal review as “Civil Service HR already undertakes continuous review and assessment of hiring practices.” 

The government does not commit to any change.

The government rejects these recommendations, arguing that this approach is “overly broad” and could constrain movement in and out of the public sector. It also argues that a five-year ban “would be deemed as an unreasonable restraint on trade”. 

It does say, however, that specific cases may result in similar judgements under the business rules – but that these would each be considered individually, rather than using a blanket, automatic approach. 

The government agrees with these recommendations, setting out that it will strengthen the clauses in civil service contracts which require adherence to the business appointment rules. Those entering the civil service on these new contracts will “consult the rules and their contract for the resulting conditions” on what they can do on leaving the public sector. 

Ministers do not have contracts, but the government “will develop a Deed of Undertaking” which will legally commit ministers to adherence to the rules.

The government accepts this recommendation, noting that “a new departmental training programme is already underway, and this will be supplemented as needed with other support.”

The government also agrees to develop a “MoU or Framework Document” to set out how it will work with ACOBA, and the timescales in which ACOBA should respond to applications. 

The government accepts this recommendation, saying that “should such an appointment occur, ministers will be obliged to write to their select committee and appear before it if requested by the select committee chair.” The government also notes that no such appointments have been made in recent years.

The government accepts most of these recommendations, although it is not clear when the more regular reports will be published. The Cabinet Office is developing “a single database to collate and publish department’s transparency returns”, and once that is developed the government will “look to” move to a monthly reporting cycle.

The reporting requirement will also be extended to senior civil servants: “all directors general, finance and commercial directors, and senior responsible owners”, but not to special advisers as “they cannot authorise expenditure nor exercise any statutory powers”.

The government partially accepts these recommendations, saying it will issue “new transparency guidance for departments [which] will create stricter minimum standards for descriptions of meetings”. 

But the government argues that there is no need to change the accountability structure around reporting, as ministers and permanent secretaries are already involved in the process.
 

The government argues that its recent guidance on the use of “non-corporate communication channels” already makes this requirement clear. It rejects the recommendation that letters, WhatsApps, impromptu phone calls or emails should be included in transparency declarations. 

The government accepts most of these recommendations, and commits to extending the requirements of the register to declaring the subject matter of lobbying and the ultimate beneficiary, which it “will look to implement via secondary legislation”. 

However, the government does not intend to broaden the definition of lobbying to wider groups, or require lobbyists to declare specific instances of lobbying. The government is clear it does not intend to introduce new primary legislation to amend the current lobbying legislation.
 

The government rejects this recommendation, saying that the Cabinet Office “undertakes continuous review and assessment of the honours process across government.”