Demonstration of integrity

If Prime Minister Andy Burnham wants a different political culture, he needs to start with the Ministerial Code says Dave Penman. 

Every new Prime Minister enters No.10 telling the world they will act with integrity. Some, like Rishi Sunak, do it on the steps of Downing Street, seeking to distance themselves from their immediate predecessors – not without some justification.

I don’t doubt that most of them mean it. The vast majority of politicians enter politics because they want to do the right thing, have a sense of public duty and are in it for the greater good. It takes a lot of self-belief to propel yourself to the door of No.10, and that includes a belief that you will act in the public interest.

Politics is challenging and governing is brutal – reality hits you hard and fast. No simple solutions, compromises right, left and centre and always disappointing someone. Trusted allies are few and far between. Most politicians are ambitious – they need to be to make it to Cabinet – which is why there’s always speculation, different political camps and allegiances, some through ideology, some through naked ambition.

So when a Prime Minister faces a difficult decision about a minister and their conduct, it becomes more than just about integrity. It can come at the wrong time, further weakening the Prime Minister. It can upset the political balance of Cabinet or be viewed as payback for some other misdemeanour, briefing or jockeying for position.

It could be a close political ally who’s critical to delivering a key piece of legislation. Does it serve the national good to sack a minister for their conduct when they’re about to do what the PM considers critical for the broader public good? When John Bercow was Speaker and facing accusations of bullying – subsequently proven – some politicians wondered aloud whether it mattered, when he was critical to ensuring the debates around Brexit were handled in a particular way.

It’s a decision that inherently comes with conflicts of interest – that’s just political reality. Understanding where you could be conflicted, regardless of initial intent, is a demonstration of integrity.

That’s why we’ve written to the new Prime Minister and asked him to do just that. To go further than his predecessors and give up the decision-making powers on complaints under the Ministerial Code, when it comes to complaints of bullying and harassment against ministers. The Prime Minister can still retain his power of sanction on a minister, but we believe that decisions on fact should be taken independently.

Bullying and harassment is not a party political issue. All governments, including this one, have ministers whose behaviour would not be tolerated in any other context. The power imbalance between a civil servant and a minister is huge, and when a civil servant is considering what could be a career-defining decision to challenge that, they are currently faced with an opaque process, with no rights for any of the parties involved and ultimately a decision made by the very person who appointed that minister in the first place.

As we’ve seen in Parliament, the lack of an independent process for handling complaints actively discourages complaints being made. That process, where decisions on complaints were taken by fellow MPs, resulted in zero complaints over nearly half a decade. When an inquiry was set up following the Westminster #MeToo scandal, hundreds of staff came forward with complaints of bullying and sexual harassment.

The new PM says he wants to do politics differently, wants a different political culture. This would be one way of demonstrating that to the very people whose job it is to deliver for his government.