Politics

Critics of the new Ministerial Code should focus on what matters

The revised code won’t save Johnson if he is found to have misled parliament. But it does show a determination to avoid scrutiny

May 30, 2022
article header image
REUTERS / Alamy Stock Photo

The government published an updated version of the Ministerial Code on Friday afternoon, during parliamentary recess, meaning there could be no immediate scrutiny by politicians. Instead, political Twitter descended into outrage after media reports that the new code had removed the requirement for ministers who break it to resign.

But this was not correct. The code had only ever explicitly specified resignation for one particular misdeed: knowingly misleading parliament. And that is still the case—the new version has the exact same provision. Instead of rushing to judgment without reading the code closely first, it is better to look at exactly what has changed and what is revealed by the shift. If we do that it becomes clear that some things have actually improved—but others have very much gone in the wrong direction.

On the positive side, the revisions have clarified that other breaches may attract different sanctions, including a public apology, the forfeit of a portion of the minister’s salary, or some other “remedial action.” This is sensible, and is just making explicit what has always been the reality. In 2012 Sayeeda Warsi was found to have broken the code because she did not declare a professional relationship with a businessman who helped organise part of a visit to Pakistan. She apologised and David Cameron was content for her to remain in office.

Conversely, other ministers have resigned for breaches other than knowingly misleading parliament: Damian Green resigned after statements he made to the press were found to be misleading about his personal conduct, and Priti Patel for failing to tell prime minister Theresa May about the details of a trip to Israel. So the new provision goes some way to clearing up confusion around what the sanctions are, which will lead to a more informed debate about the code. It will also mean potential breaches can be investigated on their merits, rather than with the minister in question immediately fighting to save their job. Of course, the prime minister could have gone further and set out what kinds of breaches would attract what kinds of sanctions, but this is a good first step.

But that does not mean there isn’t plenty to criticise in the new code. First and foremost is the lack of ambition for the role of Lord Geidt, the so-called independent adviser on ministerial interests. Geidt had written to Johnson at the start of the year saying he hoped for more powers. Many organisations—including us at the Institute for Government, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and Transparency International—have called for him to have the ability to start his own investigations into potential wrongdoing by ministers, rather than having to wait for the prime minister’s approval. Johnson decided not to allow this—he must still sign off every investigation. If he decides not to, Johnson does not have to explain his veto if he thinks the matter is too sensitive.

And there are more reasons to feel dispirited about the new code. The new foreword, written by the prime minister, provoked concern because it no longer refers to the seven Nolan principles (selflessness, integrity and so on). But these are embedded into the code itself, where it says ministers “are expected to observe the Seven Principles of Public Life.” What is more interesting in the foreword is Johnson’s reference to “my ministers”—traditionally they are ministers of the crown, not of the prime minister. The new foreword also no longer includes a reference to the impartiality of the civil service, which may be a signal of future changes the government is considering.

The accompanying policy statement says the code is solely a matter for the executive and that care must be taken not to conflate the executive and the legislature. This disregards the fact that the executive is drawn from the legislature and that the prime minister only holds office as long as he commands the confidence of the Commons. Taken together, these tweaks make crystal clear what has been obvious for a while: that the prime minister and his team do not consider themselves bound by anything other than the electorate’s verdict every now and then in a general election.

For those who care about ethical standards in government, the new Ministerial Code is not much of a reason to celebrate. But critics should focus on questions about who has the power to investigate and enforce standards, rather than working themselves up into a fury about a non-existent problem and, in the process, missing the big picture.