Ministerial Code

(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.

Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.

The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in Government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the ministerial code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.

The ministerial code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.

The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.

I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the question which aspect of the ministerial code the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country.

Order. I thank the Minister who has been sent here, for coming to the House.

Once again I must remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. I understand that media announcements must be managed carefully as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. That is the problem. It is the ministerial code that is being broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its Members to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. Unfortunately, last week, when I also had to criticise Ministers, some of them decided to make comments about “having a bugle”. The point is, those Ministers ought to learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media.

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide.

We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings?

Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan?

We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise.

I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.

I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.

I commend the Minister for saying clearly, and quite rightly, that we should not be taking lessons from the Conservative party. What more can he say about the reforms that will follow the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that former Ministers cannot trade on their knowledge through the revolving door and—with the scrapping of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which had been derided as a toothless regulator—that there are far stronger safeguards on former Ministers taking up jobs in the private sector.

I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. We made a manifesto promise to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission—now a manifesto promise kept—and abolished ACOBA, which means that there will be financial penalties for ex-Ministers who break any rules on jobs. That is something that the former Prime Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, will surely be furious about.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It seems that the urgent question has been in part fuelled by rampant pre-Budget briefing, but I would argue that it is a symptom of wider dysfunction in our Budget scrutiny process. Parliament is generally relegated to the sidelines and has no real power to challenge or amend the Budget, unlike in other democracies. Will the Minister look to review the UK Budget scrutiny process and see what we can learn from other countries? More broadly, will he look to enshrine the ministerial code into law? Will he also look at the role of the ethics adviser and ensure that it is truly independent, able to initiate its own investigations, come to its own conclusions and publish reports in its own time?

To address that question directly, we have no plans to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing. It is a standard that sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations of his or her Ministers and it is right that it remains a political document directed by the Prime Minister. That has been the approach of many Governments.

Mr Speaker, I assure you that the Government and I take our obligations to the House very seriously. Before I was elected, I regularly read about what was going to be in the Budget in the papers. That is why, to answer the hon. Member’s question, it is right that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government have already engaged with the inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report in full and recommendations that it might have.

Just to be helpful, it was me who asked for the report.

My constituents have not forgotten following the rules during lockdown only to find out that the then Government, who set those rules, were having raucous, drunken parties in the corridors of power. I greatly welcome this Government’s strengthening the ministerial code and ensuring that our nation’s leaders are properly held to account. What is the Minister’s response to those who served in the previous Government having the brass neck to lecture this Government on standards in public life?

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point. It is somewhat ironic to be asked the urgent question by a former PPS to a Prime Minister who did so much to corrode trust in government. Under that Prime Minister, as opposed to this one, not one but two independent advisers resigned from their posts because they did not feel able to conduct their inquiries. I will not take lectures from the Conservative party on standards in public life.

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?

On the independent football regulator appointment, the hon. Member may be aware that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, setting out in detail his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements that were in place. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment, or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret. I draw the House’s attention to the independent adviser’s conclusion that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s

“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that mistakes are acknowledged and necessary steps taken to improve processes underpinning standards in public life.”

It is clear that trust in politicians from all parties is too low, and that is why I really welcome the setting up of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, but just for the avoidance of doubt, and to place it on the public record, can my hon. Friend confirm his view on the ethics of elected Members of any Parliament accepting bribes from Russia to ask questions?