Stop stoking the fire and arm watchdogs with independent powers to fight sleaze
The failed attempt to overturn Owen Paterson’s suspension from the House of Commons has revealed just how much more independent oversight the UK needs to achieve truly high standards in public life.
The House of Commons already has a fairly independent system for upholding the code of conduct for MPs: potential breaches are investigated by the independent standards commissioner, who writes a report for the Standards Committee which consists of MPs and, importantly, independent lay members. The committee assesses the commissioner’s findings and, in serious cases like that of Mr Paterson, recommends a sanction, which the Commons then votes on. This balances independence of process with the need to ensure the system rests on the shoulders of people democratically elected, rather than unelected officials. This was the independent system the government tried to rip up two weeks ago, by installing a new committee with a majority of Conservative members.
The furious backlash prompted a speedy U-turn from the government and Paterson’s resignation. The Commons has reinstated the original judgement of Paterson and the Prime Minister has set out plans to stop MPs having second jobs as parliamentary or political consultants. So, for now at least, the system in the Commons is secure.
But the same cannot be said for the various watchdogs tasked with upholding standards within government. Lord Geidt, the prime minister’s independent adviser on ministerial interests, whose remit includes advising the prime minister on the enforcement of the ministerial code, cannot begin an investigation into possible ministerial misconduct unless the prime minister allows him to. Nor can he publish the findings of his investigations – that power belongs to the government alone.
Similarly, the body that polices the “revolving door” between public sector jobs and roles ministers and senior officials take up after leaving government – the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) – can only issue advice. Other than a strongly worded letter. it has no way of enforcing the conditions it sets.
Neither the independent advisor nor the advisory committee has a basis in legislation – if a prime minister wanted to, they could just get rid of both of them.
In their report, the Committee on Standards in Public Life highlighted this weakness. Last week, the Chair of the committee, Lord Evans, warned we need to “re-establish our commitment to credible, independent regulation” of public office.
To do that means arming the independent adviser and ACOBA with a proper legislative basis and real investigative powers. They are not the first to ask for this: Nigel Boardman, the Slaughter and May consultant who headed the investigation into Lex Greensill and David Cameron made similar proposals.
According to him, the public sector “lagged behind” the private sector when it comes to compliance, and preferred self-regulation.
The limitations of this are now self-evident.
Strong independence will instil trust in government. Johnson has taken a tentative first step with the proposed bans on consulting jobs. Now, he needs to show real leadership and ensure the watchdogs tasked with protecting standards have the independence they need to do their jobs.