Why has Rishi Sunak failed to hire a new ethics adviser?

Rishi Sunak is facing growing calls to appoint an ethics adviser following a series of allegations against senior members of his government.

On taking office last month, the prime minister promised there would be “integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level” of his government. Part of this included a pledge, later confirmed by Downing Street, that he would soon appoint an independent adviser on ministerial interests.

The last person to hold the position was Lord Geidt, who resigned in June after just five months in the role saying he had been put in an “impossible and odious position” by Boris Johnson, whom he accused of proposing a “deliberate” breach of the ministerial code. Johnson failed to appoint a replacement as did his immediate successor Liz Truss.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What does an ethics adviser do?

The ethics adviser’s job is to counsel the prime minister on whether members of the government have broken the ministerial code. The position comes with a series of responsibilities, including scrutinising all interest declarations from ministers, providing advice to ministers on how to handle their interests, and overseeing the production of a statement of ministers’ interests twice a year, said The National.

The aim is to “prevent sleaze and corruption from taking hold at the top of the British state”, said The Independent, “but the role has been criticised for being insufficiently powerful, with recommendations easily brushed aside by a prime minister determined to flout the rules”.

For example, even if the independent adviser concludes there has been a breach of the code, the decision on whether to keep that minister in their post remains solely with the PM.

This means the role “is somewhat of a misnomer”, said the Evening Standard, as “the adviser does not exist to hold the prime minister’s feet to the fire”.

Rather, as Dr Catherine Haddon of the Institute for Government explained, they are there to “keep ministers in line” and “allow prime ministers to distance themselves from the investigative and judgement process”.

In recent times this has led to tension between the PM and their adviser, as happened with Geidt and his predecessor, Sir Alex Allan, who according to the Daily Mail “stormed off” after Johnson found that his home secretary at the time, Priti Patel, had not breached the code, despite Allan’s conclusion that she had not “consistently met the high standards required”.

Why does Sunak need one now?

“Sunak said that appointing an ethics adviser would be among the first things he would do as prime minister,” said The Independent.

Yet nearly a month into his premiership the role remains unfilled. This despite his promise to restore integrity to the heart of a government that is already facing several challenges.

First, he faced questions surrounding the reappointment of Suella Braverman as home secretary only days after she had resigned from the Truss government for breaching the ministerial code. This was followed by multiple allegations of bullying and the subsequent resignation of former chief whip Gavin Williamson.

The Evening Standard said “the absence of such an adviser reared its head again” following allegations of bullying made against the deputy prime minister and justice secretary Dominic Raab.

With no independent adviser in place, Sunak said he would appoint someone else to lead an inquiry into the claims, a move criticised by Labour.

There is no doubt “an independent adviser would help the prime minister”, said Prospect. “Such a figure could have investigated any allegations that were floating around before Williamson’s appointment was made, or at the very least investigated new ones when they arose, and would have been able to look into the furore surrounding Braverman’s use of personal emails to forward government documents,” said the magazine.

“Instead, the prime minister is left to get to the bottom of these claims without such support – a distraction from the job of governing and dealing with pressing issues like the cost-of-living crisis.”

Is the role fit for purpose?

As highlighted by Johnson and Truss, a prime minister is under no obligation to appoint an ethics adviser. This has led MPs to table a new Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests (Parliamentary Appointment) Bill that would force Downing Street to fill the role.

Yet “the debate about the prime minister’s ongoing failure to appoint an adviser points to a deeper problem about the role’s lack of independence from the prime minister”, said Prospect.

One suggestion to restore credibility from the Committee on Standards in Public Life is that the position should be appointed on a statutory basis.

“It was only under Johnson that the principal role of the ethics adviser came to be investigating the PM,” said Jill Rutter for UK in a Changing Europe. “More normal PMs see them as a helpful adjunct in holding their colleagues to high standards.

“Sunak should make sure the independent adviser has the resources they need – and can initiate their own inquiries and publish the results to their own timetable,” she argued.