An overarching reform of the rules of government is sorely needed

Editorial: A royal commission, with an accelerated timetable, would be a consensual way through the brambles of lobbying and the thickets of self-interest to a more stable future

(Dave Brown)

Boris Johnson tells the world, a little embarrassingly for all concerned, that Britain is not remotely a corrupt country. Rishi Sunak confesses that the government needs to do better. It’s a welcome U-turn, compared to the complacent attitude of a week ago.

A botched attempt to bypass the independent commissioner for standards and the House of Commons Standards Committee, in the case of Owen Paterson, has been followed by a string of disturbing allegations about apparent greed, corruption or abuse of the rules.

The second week of this entirely self-inflicted period of humiliation has ended up with calls from the cabinet itself for change and a general consensus that the powers of the independent watchdogs need to be strengthened rather than curtailed – whether it suits the prime minister or not.

Where, though, is the plan for such a reform? The principles of public life set out by the Nolan Committee more than a quarter of a century ago remain timeless: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty – and leadership. Applying those principles to the world as it is now – and to the satisfaction of a public that holds commendable expectations of its legislators and rulers – is another matter.

Take, for example, the question of so-called second jobs. These cover a vast range of activities; from consultancy that borders on paid lobbying, through directorships with unspecific duties, to charitable work, commercial legal activity, working in the NHS, bits of journalism and public speaking, and so on.

Even if they are declared and within the rules, the public have a right to be concerned that they do not distract members from what should be their primary responsibility. Drawing up any set of rules aside from an outright ban might only create fresh loopholes, if MPs insist on treating the exercise as game and ignoring the spirit of the reforms.

Such is the ingenuity of the political mind that nothing short of an outright ban that also outlasts their time in parliament (so frustrating cushy retirement sinecures) would stop the present culture of gaming the system.

Far too often, public service is regarded as an easy way to make money, both at the time and in retirement; with lucrative book and memoir contracts, speaking engagements and directorships and consultancies cashing in on their life as legislators and ministers.

The mixing of private money and public service feeds corruption. The sanctions on MPs who transgress are also generally weak, despite Owen Paterson’s high-profile indignation. A few weeks off work isn’t such a harsh punishment for an MP in a safe seat and a job for life, one with a generous salary and still-more generous allowances and expenses. In terms of the Nolan principles, the present process lacks accountability.

Apart from rare cases of criminal offences carrying custodial sentences, there is no opportunity for the voters to eject an errant member until a general election comes along.

What is also obvious to the likes of a Lord Evans, the head of the Standards Committee, and Lord Geidt, the current adviser on ministers’ interests, is that more effective deterrence is needed to moderate the behaviour of ministers.

The independent adviser on ministers’ interests isn’t that independent, given that they have to have the approval of the prime minister to undertake any reviews. There is, uniquely with this premier, the unavoidable impression that no one has any control or influence on his apparent abuses of the rules, nor on him using his own considerable political leverage to undermine the rules as they apply to friends and allies, such as the ill-fated attempt to rescue Mr Paterson from himself.

There is no one person, with the partial exception of Lord Evans, in a position to reform the rules in the Commons and the Lords, and in government, and to make sure they are consistent.

Such an overarching review is obviously needed if the public is to have some confidence in the honesty of the system. The speaker and lord speaker can only reform the Commons and Lords respectively with full acquiescence; and the prime minister has to cooperate with that and to engage with efforts to frame a stronger code of ethics and enforcement for his ministers – and himself.

A royal commission, with an accelerated timetable, would be a consensual way through the brambles of lobbying and the thickets of self-interest to a more stable future, but meanwhile there is nothing to stop MPs and ministers heeding the public mood and relinquishing their more onerous private diversions. The game’s up.