Scrutiny of ministerial ethics and standards of conduct in the UK: diluted accountability?

The UK’s system for regulating the standards of conduct of its politicians today consists of an overlapping array of different bodies. Focusing primarily on ministers, the authors critique these arrangements and argue that they collectively—and in most cases individually—do not satisfy the demands of substantive accountability, owing to the high potential for political interference and the ‘gaps’ in the system. Particularly problematic is the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests, an office which has been repeatedly shown to be toothless, subject to political interference and navigable by a ‘rogue’ prime minister such as Boris Johnson. In place of this, the authors recommend substantive reform of the system, with a single regulator, a new ‘Office of Parliamentary and Ministerial Standards’, at its core. This body would be independent of both parliament and government, adequately resourced to engage in and lead detailed investigations and empowered to make definitive rulings as to when the various codes of conduct have been breached. This article contains insights and analysis which will be of significance for those managing scrutiny and oversight processes relating to ethics and standards of conduct, at all levels of governance. While focused on the UK, the insights of this article are particularly pertinent for other ‘Westminster’ systems (including within the UK), but may also be of interest to scholars concerned with how to safeguard political systems against the impact of populist and authoritarian actors, who are gaining a foothold in parliaments across the democratic world and achieving executive power.