How far does the Anti-Corruption Strategy really go on political integrity?

Last week the UK Government published the long-awaited Anti-Corruption Strategy. We welcomed much of the strategy. With new commitments spanning money laundering risks to developments on local government corruption, it is the most wide-ranging effort to tackle the threat of corruption to the UK in years.

However, the number of new commitments to restore political integrity was threadbare. The emphasis was instead on repeating the policies the government has already introduced or said they would introduce, and these do not amount to meaningful, wholesale reform. 

This is despite the government’s manifesto commitment to a “clean-up that ensures the highest standards of integrity and honesty”. It is a clean-up that the public think is badly needed with polling showing over two-thirds believe politicians primarily act out of self-interest. The Anti-Corruption Strategy seemed like the perfect opportunity to articulate an ambitious and forward-looking agenda for political integrity reform, but it fell short.

But there is still time. The government can still act to demonstrate that its commitment to political finance, governance and standards goes beyond campaign rhetoric. 

We had hoped that Labour’s campaign emphasis on public service would translate into decisive action on the most pressing weaknesses in the standards landscape: the independence of the Adviser on Standards, the revolving door, lobbying and the legal status of many of our ethics regulators.  

But the strategy did not provide anything new. Instead, it largely restated existing policies. For example, it noted the steps taken to bolster the Adviser’s independence, increase the frequency of gifts and hospitality disclosures and abolish the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) in an attempt to address the revolving door. While these are welcome developments, they are not job done when it comes to standards reform.

This lack of new, concrete promises was particularly evident in the government’s approach to lobbying reform. The strategy’s commitment to keep lobbying transparency “under review” is vague and non-committal. With lobbying scandals still continuing to undermine trust in Westminster, reform is urgently needed. The government was able to introduce a monthly release of gifts and hospitality records for ministers – why can’t they do the same for lobbying meetings? Better still, it could legislate for a comprehensive lobbying register that includes in-house lobbyists as seen in Canada, Europe and countless others. 

Additionally, abolishing ACOBA does not, in itself, resolve the revolving door problem. Simply erasing the watchdog and transferring its functions elsewhere does nothing to address the fact that the Business Appointment Rules remain unchanged and woefully outdated.

Lastly, the whole standards regime continues to lie on a precarious footing. Many of the ethics bodies, relied on to police wrongdoing, do not have legal backing. This means that in the wrong hands they can be scrapped at whim. The strategy, unfortunately, did not set out a plan to address this. To future-proof the system, the government should place these vital watchdogs such as the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and the Independent Adviser on Standards on a statutory footing. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which is outlined in the strategy, could be a legislative vehicle for these changes.

Helpfully, the Committee on Standards in Public Life outlined a roadmap for many of these reforms in their report Standards Matters 2. Our analysis found that out of the possible 27 recommendations the current government has only implemented two - demonstrating there is clearly more to be done.

In July this year, the government outlined its plans for an upcoming elections bill. Many of these were long needed reforms to close loopholes allowing money of unknown or foreign origin to enter our political system. It’s positive that the government used the strategy as an opportunity to reinstate these commitments.  However, as we said in response to the July announcement and with recent media stories of a £9 million donation, the elephant in the room is that big money in politics has still not been addressed, with no mention in the strategy. We need donation caps to tackle wealthy donors from home and abroad attempting to influence our democracy. These measures are already seen in other democracies such as Australia, Canada and France, it’s time for the UK to catch up.

The strategy did seem to indicate that the government knows what’s at stake here: “A government that carries the trust of the public is better placed to deliver what matters: effective public services, and the creation of a stable foundation for growth, reassuring private sector businesses with the certainty they need to invest and grow in the UK.”  Yet it did not commit to any substantially new reforms on political integrity. So far the changes have been superficial and not dealt with the core issues at hand. If the government is serious about reversing declining confidence in politics, it must go further and act more boldly.