The head of the senior civil servants union has leveled criticism at Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s recent updates to the ministerial code, arguing that the reforms fall short of establishing a genuinely independent standards regime to hold top government officials accountable for potential misconduct. While acknowledging that Starmer’s changes go further than any previous prime minister in granting the independent watchdog greater autonomy to launch investigations, the union chief maintains that the revisions still leave the prime minister with the final say on determining guilt and consequences.
Union Head: Reforms a “Far Cry” from True Independence
In an article for Civil Service World, Dave Penman, the general secretary of the FDA union representing senior civil servants, offered a mixed assessment of Starmer’s ministerial code update. While praising the decision to allow the independent adviser on ministerial interests to initiate misconduct inquiries without the prime minister’s permission as unprecedented, Penman argued that the reforms ultimately fall short of the comprehensive overhaul many have called for in the wake of high-profile scandals.
Under the new ministerial code, the prime minister is still the ultimate decision-maker on guilt. The adviser does just that – advises. There is also no obligation to publish the advice; the adviser ‘may’ require publication.
The process is predicated on influence and cajoling a prime minister to do the right thing with threats of publication if not…a far cry from a truly independent process.
– Dave Penman, FDA Union General Secretary
Key Sticking Points: Adviser’s Role Remains Advisory
At the heart of Penman’s critique is the fact that even under the reformed code, the findings and recommendations of the independent adviser are not binding on the prime minister. This means that if an investigation determines a minister likely violated the code, the prime minister still has discretion to disregard that conclusion and impose no consequences, as occurred in a high-profile 2020 bullying inquiry into then-Home Secretary Priti Patel.
In that case, the independent adviser found that Patel’s treatment of civil servants constituted bullying and breached the ministerial code, but Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected the findings and declined to dismiss Patel, prompting the adviser to resign in protest. Many have pointed to this incident as underscoring the need for more substantive reforms.
Starmer Touts Restoration of Trust, But Critics Demand More
For his part, Prime Minister Starmer has framed the ministerial code changes as an important step towards “restoring trust in politics,” which he deems the “great test of our era.” A Starmer spokesman defended the reforms, noting that “unlike our Conservative predecessors,” the Labour government recognizes the importance of political integrity.
That’s why we have strengthened the ministerial code, including closing the Tory freebies loophole and delivering on our manifesto pledge to give the independent adviser unprecedented new powers.
– Labour Party Spokesman
However, many observers, including the FDA’s Penman, contend that Starmer’s changes represent more incremental progress than the transformational reforms needed to truly bolster accountability and public confidence in government. As the UK continues to weather turbulent political times, it remains to be seen whether these updates to the ministerial code will prove sufficient to meet the moment – or if pressure will mount for yet more sweeping changes to how the nation’s leaders are held to account.
Looking Ahead: Will Momentum Build for Binding Misconduct Findings?
With influential voices like the FDA union arguing Starmer’s reforms leave too much discretion in the hands of the prime minister, the debate over the robustness of the UK’s political accountability mechanisms is far from settled. Some key questions that may shape the path forward include:
- Will high-profile ministerial scandals continue to erode public trust, intensifying calls to make misconduct findings binding?
- Could future prime ministers voluntarily commit to accepting the determinations of the independent adviser, even without a mandate?
- Might Parliament intervene to impose statutory limits on the prime minister’s ability to overrule investigations?
As Penman suggests, the core issue remains that the reformed ministerial code still relies more on “influence and cajoling a prime minister to do the right thing” than on formal processes and enforceable standards. Whether public opinion will coalesce around demands for further-reaching reforms to close that gap is a key question that bears close watching in the months and years ahead.
