On coming to office, Rishi Sunak promised to bring “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level”. These commitments have already collided with the controversy over the reappointment of Suella Braverman as home secretary and the resignation of Gavin Williamson from cabinet amid bullying allegations. If the prime minister wants to restore confidence in standards and propriety at the top of government, he must now make good on another promise—to appoint a new ethics adviser—as soon as possible.
The role of independent adviser on ministerial interests has remained unfilled since Lord Geidt resigned in June, alleging that Boris Johnson had put him in an "impossible and odious position” by asking him to advise on a deliberate breach of the Ministerial Code. This was a breaking point for Geidt, who was also frustrated by Johnson’s refusal to allow him to investigate Partygate. In her brief stint as prime minister, Liz Truss refused to commit to appointing a replacement, on the basis that she had “always acted with integrity”. Johnson was pushed out by his party over standards concerns, and Truss never had the time to prove her ethics credentials.
Sunak’s contrast to his predecessors is welcome. He promised to appoint a new ethics adviser as “one of the first” things he would do. He should stick to that pledge.
Concern over ethics in government has not gone away, and an independent adviser would help the prime minister. Such a figure could have investigated any allegations that were floating around before Williamson’s appointment was made, or at the very least investigated new ones when they arose, and would have been able to look into the furore surrounding Braverman’s use of personal emails to forward government documents. Instead, the prime minister is left to get to the bottom of these claims without such support—a distraction from the job of governing and dealing with pressing issues like the cost-of-living crisis.
The debate about the prime minister’s ongoing failure to appoint an adviser points to a deeper problem about the role’s lack of independence from the prime minister. To be a properly independent guardian of ethics in government, Geidt’s eventual successor should be able to start his or her own investigations without the permission of No 10. While final decisions on whether the Ministerial Code was broken should remain with the PM, greater independence to investigate would strengthen the ability of the adviser to act as a defender of propriety and ethics among ministers.
Even when Sunak makes the appointment, the position of any new adviser will remain precarious. Johnson and Truss were both able to choose not to appoint an adviser, and while it is a smart move for Sunak to appoint one, he is not required to do so. This means that whoever holds the role faces a calculation about whether it is better to provide weak guardianship and keep their job, or to push hard on any issue and risk being turfed out and the prime minister leaving the role unfilled yet again.
To rectify this, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life has recommended, the position should be placed on a statutory basis. This would create certainty about the role and would mean the powers of the new adviser were robust. Such legislation would also set out how the adviser should be appointed, avoiding the current position where the prime minister can select a candidate they see as friendly or docile.
David Anderson, a crossbench peer, has introduced a private members’ bill that would do just that, putting the adviser as well as the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments and Commissioner for Public Appointments on a statutory basis. This would be a welcome move. The Institute for Government and Bennett Institute’s new report, “Constitutional guardians”, highlights the importance of the whole ecosystem of individuals, advisers, public bodies and committees that play a role in the constitution and provide important checks and balances. But there is also a vulnerability to that system—which relies heavily on norms, conventions and political will—when faced with a government willing to push constitutional boundaries. We outline a range of recommendations to ensure these bodies have the resources, the powers and the independence to perform their functions effectively.
If Sunak is serious about restoring integrity to government and wants to avoid the issues faced by his predecessors, then he should strengthen the position and independence of these important constitutional guardians, starting with the independent adviser.
