Labour must finally take the opportunity to properly reform our ethics system
4 min read
Angela Rayner’s resignation shows just how flimsy our integrity system really is. It should be the catalyst for Labour to finally deliver the robust, statutory ethics and integrity reforms they promised.
The debate over Rayner’s stamp duty is a stark reminder that Labour cannot afford to treat ethics reform as a second-order issue.
If the party wants any chance of restoring trust in politics – and keeping the populist tide at bay – it needs to stop tinkering around the edges and implement real reform to the UK’s broken integrity system. With Reform surging in the polls and trust in our institutions at an all-time low, the government must seize this opportunity to go far beyond its half-hearted proposals for reforming our anti-corruption infrastructure. Labour’s chances of winning again – and the health of our democracy if it doesn't – depend on it.
Wardrobe-gate. Football freebie-gate. Now, stamp duty-gate, and the ghost of scandals past, Lord Mandelson, twice forced to resign for previous breaches of standards before being rehabilitated. Labour was tough on such things in opposition, and promised to create an Ethics & Integrity Commission to raise standards and restore trust. What happened?
In Britain, we can trace a pattern through scandal after scandal, from the Tory sleaze of the 1990s and MPs' expenses scandal in 2009 to now. The basic themes recur time after time: conflicts of interest, the revolving door, party funding, and lobbying – compounded by attempted cover-ups. To nobody’s surprise, we have been witnessing a decline in trust in politicians and parties since the early 1990s. One glance at opinion polls across Europe shows you the outcome of this decline – rocket-fuel for populists, armed with the language of corruption but with no genuine intent to tackle it.
Labour inherited a golden opportunity to break this cycle. In opposition, Keir Starmer’s manifesto pledged to establish an independent Ethics & Integrity Commission. It was a promise backed by public demand: three-quarters of voters supported a new commission, and 70 per cent wanted stronger, more independent regulators. Labour came into office with the public mandate, political capital, and moral authority to act. Thus far, the party has squandered it.
Is the situation really so bad? After all, Rayner resigned following Sir Laurie Magnus’ report finding she had breached the ministerial code.
In fact, such events show the entire system is built on sand. The Independent Adviser exists only at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and there are no statutory powers, no independence, no real sanctions. The public is left gambling on the good intentions of politicians – a gamble that has failed too many times in the past.
To add to the confusion, the Rayner case shows that the system fails to distinguish between a sloppy error and a genuine ethical failure. The Guardian’s recent “Boris Files” revelations – showing how a former prime minister was able to monetise his political connections during and almost immediately on leaving office – underline a different side of the same problem. Yet who is responsible even for considering whether Johnson should be sanctioned or prosecuted?
The plan for an Ethics & Integrity Commission finally emerged after a year in office. It was the dampest of damp squibs. It proposes a tweaked system that retains the Prime Minister’s patronage, and is toothless on party funding, lobbying and abuse of the honours system. Much of the behaviour that has corroded public trust would still slip through. Most importantly, it clings to the ‘good chaps’ theory – the hope that politicians will behave nicely and police themselves when caught breaking the rules.
The past couple of weeks ought to mark a significant inflection point in the government’s approach. In a good system, the resignation of a minister who has broken the code would strengthen public trust. Instead, the system looks like a mess, and Rayner’s resignation will have done little to reinforce faith in democracy.
At a minimum, the government should accept the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendations – such as the 34 in the 2021 Standards Matter 2 report. There should be real independence: the Commission should report to Parliament and be placed on a statutory footing, not remain under the Prime Minister’s patronage. There must also be real penalties for substantial breaches, not the minor fines and occasional slap on the wrist currently proposed. Any future government that wants to abolish the ministerial code or watchdog should be forced to repeal the legislation under parliamentary scrutiny, not scrap it overnight while flooding the zone.
Fortunately, the initial announcement for an Ethics & Integrity Commission was vague enough to allow a course correction without loss of face. If the objective is to reinforce integrity, prevent corruption and restore trust in politics and democracy, that course correction is urgently required.
Robert Barrington is chair of Transparency International's international council and Professor of Anti-Corruption Practice at Sussex University.
