Will the new Ministerial Code rebuild trust in politics?

In his first speech as Prime Minister back in July, Sir Keir Starmer said that the public’s “lack of trust” in politics “can only be healed by actions, not words.” Does his Ministerial Code, published yesterday, help to ensure any of the actions needed?

Since the election, and in the aftermath of ‘passes for glasses’, most of the public hadn’t seen the trust-rebuilding action they’d been led to expect. A Full Fact/Savanta poll published last month found that 62% of the public thought the Labour Government had not done very much or nothing at all to improve trust.

We can see where the public were coming from. We wrote to the new Prime Minister four months ago, asking him to get particular rules and standards in place to restore trust, but until yesterday, he hadn’t taken any of the action requested.

Now, Sir Keir Starmer’s new Ministerial Code has been published and once again, it’s clear that the government needs to be going further, faster if it is truly serious about rebuilding trust.

The positives

Starting with the positives, the code does deliver a small improvement on ‘freebies’, following the criticism multiple ministers received during the summer. The new code makes moves to bring rules on declaring gifts for ministers closer to those for other MPs. We've noticed at least one wider, welcome improvement too.

We welcome the fact that the new Ministerial Code strengthens the independent oversight of the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards (now renamed from the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests). As promised in the manifesto, the new code gives the adviser greater freedom to carry out investigations without the threat of being stopped by the Prime Minister. 

This is a change Full Fact has long called for and is a good step in promoting accountability. Worryingly, Sir Keir Starmer has retained the power in previous codes to reject the adviser’s conclusions if he wishes.

While the strengthening of the role of the Independent Adviser is a positive step, the government failed to fully commit to a statutory code. Back in July, and to many of the previous Prime Ministers, we have been calling for the Ministerial Code to be statutory. We did this so that code could be consistently followed by all ministers - including the Prime Minister. As Boris Johnson reminded us all, if the code isn’t statutory, the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards’ findings can simply be rejected by the Prime Minister

The role of statistics

In July we also asked for the new Ministerial Code to incorporate compulsory adherence to the Code of Practice for Statistics. What would “good” look like? The Code of Practice for Statistics, overseen by the Office for Statistics Regulation (OSR) sets the standard. The OSR’s code is clear that government statements that refer to official statistics should contain a prominent link to the source data, and be accurate, clear and impartial. 

The way statistics are presented is a crucial part of how they are interpreted and understood by the public. If they are presented without context or caveats, described incorrectly, given too much weight, or stated without a source, this can give an incomplete or misleading picture, which can then misinform policy debate.

 Last year, for example, we found no evidence to support Rishi Sunak’s claim that there were 6,000 fewer people in the asylum backlog. In September, we found that Sir Keir Starmer used unpublished data on immigration returns in his party conference speech.

Unfortunately, the latest Ministerial Code does nothing to improve ministerial use of statistics. Ministers continue to be required only to “be mindful” (para 8.14) of the OSR Code of Practice. This is therefore a missed opportunity to state, unequivocally, that ministers must adhere to the principles of the Code of Practice for Statistics for all data they use to back up statements they make.

More needs to be done

Overall, the new Ministerial Code doesn’t ensure actions that will improve trust in politics, and the wait goes on for other actions that could make a positive difference. The Ethics and Integrity Commission is a flagship ethics policy for the new government, but detail still hasn’t been provided about it. The public are still awaiting information about the shape of the Commission, what powers it will have, or who will be in charge of it. For example, how - if at all - will it work to support adherence to the new Ministerial Code?

The new Ethics and Integrity Commission is currently in danger of appearing a paper tiger. After yesterday’s missed opportunity to significantly strengthen the Ministerial Code, the long wait continues for the meaningful action that will address the public’s lack of trust in politics.

Photo: HENRY NICHOLLS / AFP