Thread by @AlexRunswick

ICYMI some thoughts on the recent report from @PublicStandards as part of their Standards Matters 2 inquiry. You can read their findings here and my commentary in the 🧵below assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…

The cttee is absolutely right that the Ministerial Code, the business appointment rules & the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments transparency around lobbying & the regulation of public appointments are all in urgent need of reform.

This is not new but CSPL saying it adds weight to the international bodies like GRECO, select committees and organisations like @TransparencyUK that have calling for reform for many years. What about the specific recommendations?

On the Ministerial Code the cttee calls for independent investigations and a range of sanctions which is very welcome but stops short of putting it on a statutory footing.

Giving the Independent Adviser the power to determine that there has been a breach of the rules while allowing the PM to choose from a range of sanctions not just sacking the Minister has the potential to restore trust in the Code.

There need to be a range of effective sanctions for breaches of the rules both for the public to have trust in the system and to help create cultural norms around standards in public life. If sanctions are not used because they are to severe this contributes to undermining trust.

On ACoBA the cttee takes lessons from the USA, extending the lobbying ban to 5 years for senior posts & enforcing rules through employment contracts for civil servants & special advisers, with parallel legal arrangements for ministers.

This is a very interesting approach although it is not yet clear how this will work for Ministers. If this approach is not feasible they are also open to a statutory arrangement. They also call for more resources which is essential.

The focus on regulating business appointments for civil servants below the most senior posts currently covered by ACoBA is also important. While there have been calls to reform ACoBA for nearly a decade the departmental rules received much less attention until the Greensill case.

Lobbying transparency is where these recommendations are weakest. Why hasn’t the cttee gone as far as GRECO, @TransparencyUK, @PRCA_UK @instituteforgov and others?

These recommendations would significantly improve the quality ministerial meetings data - making it available in one central place, making the data more meaningful and publishing the data monthly would make it much more useful. But it can only ever tell half of the story.

CSPL argues that the “primary responsibility for transparency around lobbying should rest with the lobbied” but this will only ever give a partial picture. We need transparency on both sides of the relationship.

Some information is simply easier for lobbyists to provide. Examples include the bill, regulation, policy or contract that is the subject of the lobbying and whether or not the person doing the lobbying has held public office in the last 5 years.

Other comparable democracies like Ireland and Canada are already doing this – regulating both in house and consultant lobbyists. The UK needs to learn from these examples.

As expected this report is thoughtful and draws on a strong evidence base. It does well at identifying the problems and how the promise of the Nolan principles is being undermined. However in some areas it just doesn’t go far enough to tackle the core problem.

On the Ministerial Code the cttee calls for independent investigations and a range of sanctions which is very welcome but stops short of putting it on a statutory footing.

Giving the Independent Adviser the power to determine that there has been a breach of the rules while allowing the PM to choose from a range of sanctions not just sacking the Minister has the potential to restore trust in the Code.

There need to be a range of effective sanctions for breaches of the rules both for the public to have trust in the system and to help create cultural norms around standards in public life. If sanctions are not used because they are to severe this contributes to undermining trust.

On ACoBA the cttee takes lessons from the USA, extending the lobbying ban to 5 years for senior posts & enforcing rules through employment contracts for civil servants & special advisers, with parallel legal arrangements for ministers.

This is a very interesting approach although it is not yet clear how this will work for Ministers. If this approach is not feasible they are also open to a statutory arrangement. They also call for more resources which is essential.

The focus on regulating business appointments for civil servants below the most senior posts currently covered by ACoBA is also important. While there have been calls to reform ACoBA for nearly a decade the departmental rules received much less attention until the Greensill case.

Lobbying transparency is where these recommendations are weakest. Why hasn’t the cttee gone as far as GRECO, @TransparencyUK, @PRCA_UK @instituteforgov and others?

These recommendations would significantly improve the quality ministerial meetings data - making it available in one central place, making the data more meaningful and publishing the data monthly would make it much more useful. But it can only ever tell half of the story.

CSPL argues that the “primary responsibility for transparency around lobbying should rest with the lobbied” but this will only ever give a partial picture. We need transparency on both sides of the relationship.

Some information is simply easier for lobbyists to provide. Examples include the bill, regulation, policy or contract that is the subject of the lobbying and whether or not the person doing the lobbying has held public office in the last 5 years.

Other comparable democracies like Ireland and Canada are already doing this – regulating both in house and consultant lobbyists. The UK needs to learn from these examples.

As expected this report is thoughtful and draws on a strong evidence base. It does well at identifying the problems and how the promise of the Nolan principles is being undermined. However in some areas it just doesn’t go far enough to tackle the core problem.