‘A few simple measures that could help boost the public’s trust in politics’

Events of the last few years have seen a rapid decline in trust, with recent findings from the British Social Attitudes report indicating a record high proportion of the public saying they almost never trust politicians to tell the truth.

In the last few days, the Foreign Secretary kicked off a new campaign to crack down on corruption and illicit finance by sanctioning several international kleptocrats. I welcomed this as an important first step in making the UK the anti-corruption capital of the world, but I can’t help but think we should be getting our own house in order too.

Prior to being elected to Parliament, I spent more than a decade working in anti-corruption. Drawing on that experience, outlined below are three immediate measures the government could swiftly implement, which would form a first step in driving up standards across public life in the UK.

Measures for improvement

First, putting the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACOBA) on a statutory footing and giving it proper enforcement powers. ACOBA has been in existence since 1975 as a non-departmental public body, with the remit to independently review and advise on roles taken up by former ministers and senior civil servants after they leave government.

In other words, it is supposed to help police the revolving door between the private sector and government, supervising those seeking to trade on their knowledge, expertise and connections and preventing conflicts of interest and inappropriate lobbying.

Yet, all too often, government ministers have flouted those rules, with zero consequence. ACOBA is little more than an advisory body. It has no teeth to initiate enforcement actions against those individuals who fail to seek advice, or indeed simply ignore it.

Don’t just take my word for it. ACOBA Chair and former Tory government minister, Eric Pickles, wrote before the election to the Cabinet Office, highlighting concerns that delaying much-needed reform “risks further scandal in the meantime”.

ACOBA urgently needs to be put on a statutory footing and be empowered to impose legally binding conditions, while being given proper resources to take enforcement action against those who flout the rules.

READ MORE: Revealed: Labour to ensure ‘high standards of governance and democracy’ in socialist societies via annual check-ins

Second, shining a light on the means by which peers are appointed and the role of the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC).

By introducing a fit and proper person test, with a right of veto, HOLAC could act as a rigorous scrutineer of proposed appointees to the Lords. As currently constituted, the Commission recommends nominations to the Lords for independent, cross bench members and vets the propriety of all nominations for peerages.

But, as we’ve seen with recent resignation honours list, the current process lacks transparency and the overwhelming number of candidates reviewed by the Commission are political appointees – be they former Downing Street advisors, big money donors or the children of KGB agents.

In fact, between 2016 and 2023 HOLAC only appointed seven peers. Prime Ministers created 165. The current application form for non-party political appointments comprises six substantive questions to be answered by the applicant, a CV to be uploaded and very little else.

That’s not to criticise the Commission’s members. Rather, it is the appointments system itself which needs drastic reform.

Indeed, it is my view that HOLAC should go further. If we want to really drive up standards, the Commission should not only be empowered to veto appointments, but it should also be required to publish its rationale for supporting or objecting to appointments. Additional scrutiny should also be introduced where proposed peers have either acted as a fundraiser for, or made sizeable financial contributions to, a political party.

Improving faith in politics

Third, Parliament should enhance the governance around All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) – the final acronym in this alphabet soup of mooted reform.

Most new MPs have been inundated with requests to join all manner of APPGs, focusing on topics ranging from town centre regeneration to maternity services to tackling the climate emergency. Whilst they have no formal parliamentary status, APPGs can act as a valuable opportunity for MPs from across the political parties to convene and organise on topics of mutual interest.

But they also create a serious risk of impropriety. Leading anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has long urged for greater openness, noting that a number of APPGs are financed by political consultancies or public affairs firms and are open to potential abuse.

While there are rules around declaring who the secretariat is and what financial support they have provided, there remains little by way of transparency around declarations of potential conflict at APPG meetings.

Recent rule changes to restrict the number of APPG officer roles MPs can take up, to require a certain number of parliamentarians to constitute a new APPG and better scrutiny of what goes on at annual general meetings (particularly whether a meeting is actually quorate) are welcome. But in one key regard the governance falls short – who are the members?

According to the current rules, APPG membership is required to either be published on the APPG’s website or made available on request. Yet a cursory glance of online shows many websites remain out-of-date or simply don’t exist. There should be a requirement for membership to be published in full and in good time, and for that list to be diligently kept up to date.

Taken together, these measures don’t cost a great deal, and could be implemented at pace. They would go some way to improving transparency, rebuilding faith in politics as a force for good, and demonstrate initial improvements to standards across public life.

SIGN UP: Get the best daily roundup and analysis of Labour news and comment in our newsletter

For more from LabourList, follow us on  Threads, Bluesky, X, Facebook,  Instagram or WhatsApp.

• SHARE: If you have anything to share that we should be looking into or publishing about this story – or any other topic involving Labour– contact us (strictly anonymously if you wish) at [email protected]. 
• SUBSCRIBE: Sign up to LabourList’s morning email here for the best briefing on everything Labour, every weekday morning. 
• DONATE: If you value our work, please donate to become one of our supporters here and help sustain and expand our coverage.
• PARTNER: If you or your organisation might be interested in partnering with us on sponsored events or content, email [email protected].