Matt Hancock’s fall from grace is just the latest in a long line of ministerial misdemeanours during Boris Johnson’s time in office. The only difference with Hancock is that he did, after initial hesitation, face some kind of sanction (albeit through his own choice rather than a sacking). The home secretary, Priti Patel, was accused of bullying her officials but saw her permanent secretary and the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial interests both leave government, while she faced no penalty beyond making a public apology.
At least Alex Allan, the independent adviser, was able to investigate the Patel case before having his conclusions rejected by the prime minister: Johnson did not even permit him to look into the housing secretary Robert Jenrick and his relationship with developer and Conservative Party donor Richard Desmond. And the prime minister himself failed for several weeks to explain who had first paid for the refurbishment of the Downing Street flat; a failure that Lord Geidt, the new independent adviser, branded “unwise.” The overall impression is of a prime minister who is not interested in actively upholding the standards expected of those in public life.
This relaxed approach to the rules may be of benefit to Johnson in the short term: he has the political strength to brush off criticisms, but this attitude erodes confidence in the functioning of government and our democracy as a whole. And it may be starting to have political implications: Labour is certainly trying to get the accusation of “one rule for them, another for the rest of us” to stick.
Johnson has the opportunity to show that he is serious about upholding standards in public life, and thus counter the growing chorus of criticism. When he appointed Geidt in the spring, he committed to updating the ministerial code, the set of rules and principles that ministers are expected to adhere to during and immediately after their time in office. As our new Institute for Government report “Updating the ministerial code” argues, rather than making only piecemeal changes to the code the prime minister should commit to a full overhaul.
The code is only as good as the system for enforcing it, so a priority must be to bolster the role of the independent adviser. Despite his job title, Geidt has very little independence: he can only investigate potential breaches of the code when the prime minister asks him to. Johnson should give Geidt the power to open his own investigations (as well as to reject calls to investigate where he does not believe the events in question require it, to avoid investigating vexatious complaints) and to publish his own findings. Only then will he be properly independent.
To allow for this, the prime minister should commit to legislating for the existence and principles of the ministerial code and the role of the adviser. Unlike the codes of conduct for civil servants and special advisers, the code for ministers is not currently on a legal footing. While it is unlikely that any prime minister would do away with the code entirely, its current lack of statutory underpinning weakens it. Enshrining the need for there to be a code would reinforce its status in upholding standards in government.
The code’s specific contents should change to reflect the priorities of each prime minister. And Johnson should use his planned update to fully refresh its rules. Properly distinguishing between standards of behaviour, such as the requirement to avoid conflicts of interest, and outlining the procedures of government, like who can attend which cabinet committee, will make the code easier to uphold. The prime minister should make clear that if a minister is found to have broken the code, that does not automatically mean they should resign—for lesser breaches, a lesser sanction will be appropriate, and this will help dampen the constant speculation about ministers’ futures whenever there is even an accusation of a breach.
Making these changes would be a serious statement of intent from Johnson. It would show that he understands the importance of standards in public life, and his unique role in upholding them. It would help him shed the criticism that he does not care. But it does require him to step up and lead on this issue, something he has thus far seemed unwilling to do.
