Boris Johnson 'failed to improve standards' with new ministerial code, says think tank

According to the Institute for Government, said it was “regrettable” that the Prime Minister’s independent advisers on ministerial interests hadn’t been given “any new powers that would have made his role properly independent”.

Writing on the think tank’s website, associate director Tim Durrant said the UK Government failed to implement a number of its recommendations.

Durrant said: “The more noteworthy – and regrettable – aspect of the new ministerial code is what has not changed. The prime minister failed to give Lord Geidt, his so-called independent adviser on ministerial interests, any new powers that would have made his role properly independent.

READ MORE: Boris Johnson faces no-confidence vote risk as more Tory MPs call for his resignation

“Geidt still requires the prime minister’s approval to begin any investigation into potential wrongdoing by a minister, and the prime minister can withhold that permission without having to explain why.

“There were many other recommendations from the CSPL that the government also failed to implement, including to legislate for the existence of the code, arguing that it is a political matter which “the government considers to be non-justiciable.”

The think tank also took issue with the Cabinet Office after it said parliament cannot have a role in upholding standards in government.

Durrant continued: “In grandiose language, the [Cabinet Office] statement sets out the government’s view that parliament can have no role whatsoever in upholding standards inside government as that would risk ‘conflating the executive and the legislature’.

“This is despite the fact that the prime minister only holds that role as long as he maintains the confidence of the Commons – in our system the executive is drawn from the legislature, meaning the Commons is of course a key part of upholding standards in government.

The Prime Minister’s independent adviser on the Ministerial Code, Lord Geidt (Dominic Lipinski/PA)

“Changes to the foreword also removed reference to the Nolan principles (though these are embedded in the code) and the impartiality of the civil service. In the statement and foreword, Johnson and his allies effectively state that they do not believe anyone should have the right to question how they behave in office once elected.”

Johnson faced further criticism from the standards watchdog after he refused to give his adviser on the rules for ministers the freedom to launch his own inquiries into possible breaches.

On Friday, the Prime Minister said he was putting in place an “enhanced process” for his independent adviser on the Ministerial Code, Lord Geidt, to initiate his own investigations, but that he would still need the Prime Minister’s consent before proceeding.

But the chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Evans of Weardale, said the change, while an improvement on the previous position, meant the adviser was still not “sufficiently independent”.

In a statement last week, the Government said the code was being updated, making clear that ministers will not necessarily have to resign for more minor violations.

Instead the Prime Minister will have the option of imposing a lesser sanction such as “some form of public apology, remedial action or removal of ministerial salary for a period”.

Lord Evans (above), a former director general of MI5, said the move was in line with the committee’s recommendation that it was “disproportionate” to expect ministers should automatically forfeit their jobs.

However, in a letter to Cabinet Office Minister Lord True, he said the change effectively removed the objection to the adviser being able to launch his own inquiries.

“Past governments of both parties resisted granting the adviser the power to initiate investigations independently, due to the presumption of resignation, as this would have given the independent adviser the effective power to fire a minister – a power that only the Prime Minister should have,” he said.

READ MORE: Why does the Speaker permit all of Boris Johnson's jibes?

“The introduction of a range of sanctions, with the appropriate sanction decided solely by the Prime Minister, removes this constitutional obstacle.

“We continue to be of the view that a system where the independent adviser requires the Prime Minister’s permission to launch an investigation is not sufficiently independent.

“Similarly, current arrangements retain the risk that, irrespective of sanction, the Prime Minister can directly overrule the adviser on the finding of a breach, circumstances that would critically undermine the credibility of the adviser’s office.”

Lord Geidt’s predecessor, Sir Alex Allan, resigned in 2020 after Johnson rejected his finding that Home Secretary Priti Patel had been guilty of bullying civil servants.