Late recusals: What the football regulator appointment tells us about conflicts of interest in Whitehall

The Commissioner for Public Appointments recently found that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) breached the Governance Code in her appointment of the independent football regulator, David Kogan. Specifically, she did not declare and resolve a conflict of interests she held, having accepted £2,900 worth of donations from Mr Kogan before selecting him for the role. In his report on DCMS’s handling of the process, the Commissioner also cited the £33,140 worth of donations from the applicant to the Labour Party and Labour candidates, which were not disclosed publicly during the process, and constituted a further breach of the Code.

In the pre-appointment scrutiny hearing with evidence from Mr Kogan, it was revealed that he had also donated to the Prime Minister in his leadership campaign in 2020. In a subsequent exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and his Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, Sir Laurie Magnus stated that it was ‘regrettable’ that the Prime Minister had rubber stamped the appointment of Mr Kogan by stating he was ‘content’ with it.

Looking at the details from the Commissioner for Public Appointments' report and Sir Laurie Magnus’s assessment of events, we draw several lessons on the process of recusals and the management of conflicts of interest in Whitehall.

Conflicts of interest management and the use of recusals

The Ministerial Code sets out that Ministers must:

‘ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise.’

As outlined in the most recent report from the Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards, the process for managing conflicts of interest includes:

• removal of the interest, for example by stepping down from a position or disposing of an investment
• recusal from government activity that may have a bearing on that interest
• delegation to a second minister in the decision-making process
• oral and written declarations to ensure transparency

The Ministerial Code also mentions that processes can be put in place where the interest is maintained, which can include prohibiting ‘access to certain papers’ and ensuring that ‘the minister is not involved in certain decisions.’

Examples of recusals under the previous government are available here.

Gaps in the system of recusals

It is clear that the recusal process is not working as intended.

First, both the Secretary of State for DCMS and the Prime Minister recused themselves after the substantial public decision had been made. In April 2025, the Secretary of State approved Mr Kogan as the Government’s preferred candidate. Yet it was almost a month later that she removed herself from the process, and delegated the final decision to Minister Peacock. Likewise, the Prime Minister recused himself in June 2025, but only after he had indicated he was content with the appointment.

These belated recusals amount to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. While the Ministerial Code doesn't explicitly state that conflicts of interest management need to be ‘proactive’, doing so is clearly in the spirit of the rules: ‘[ministers must] scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or perceived conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private interests.’ Yet, it seems the donations in this instance were not actively identified, and media coverage suggests this led to a perception of private interests interfering with public decision making.

Secondly, the recusal process was muddled with decisions being reversed and then reinstated.

Letters between Sir Laurie Magnus and the Prime Minister show in the Autumn of 2024 Sir Keir Starmer had already recused himself from decisions relating to the Football Governance Bill due to his interests in the sport, namely ‘hospitality from football clubs and the Football Association on a number of occasions.’ Given the Bill established the Independent Football Regulator, one might assume this recusal should apply to appointing the IFR’s Chair, too. So how and why was a ‘note’ on the appointment of David Kogan submitted to the Prime Minister in April 2025, if he had already recused himself from related decisions? 

The answer may lie in a recent report by the National Audit Office. They assessed how six departments managed conflicts of interests, including the Cabinet Office, and found several gaps; for example, poor record keeping ‘including missing declarations, no record of agreed mitigations and no line manager sign-off.’ It also found that none of the departments automatically looked at political donations regarding conflicts of interest management.

Delegation and documentation are key to ensuring that ministers take decisions in the public interest and avoid the perception of private interests interfering with the appointments process. Recusals can also be used to mitigate against conflicts of interest but they have not been effective in this case.

Next steps

It is welcome that the Prime Minister has called for an inquiry into recusals in response to this episode. Yet there are already several proposals about how to manage conflicts of interests from the National Audit Office, including a central electronic register of conflicts of interest, which would help improve internal transparency and management of these issues. Complementary would be additional transparency measures, such as sharing notes of ministerial recusals as part of the published list of ministers’ interests. Spotlight on Corruption have also proposed that any central register of conflicting interests be made publicly accessible. Though a new inquiry could still add value, there is already a list of measures Government could take forward now to put it back onto the front foot. 

Rather than post hoc recusals, if this latest saga is to teach us anything, it’s that acting sooner rather than later would save ministers from unnecessary distraction in the media, which does little for public trust in them and gets in the way of delivery.