New measures to strengthen appointment and vetting processes following Mandelson revelations
National Security Vetting process to be reviewed following Peter Mandelson case
Ethics and Integrity Commission tasked with tightening financial disclosures, lobbying and business appointment rules
Further reforms build on ambitious programme of standards and ethics reform
The Westminster Government has ordered an overhaul of standards in Whitehall to boost ethics and integrity in political and public life following the Peter Mandelson case.
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones confirmed the work builds on the significant action this Government has already taken to deliver reforms to standards and ethics.
However, the Mandelson case has also shown more needs to be done and raised further questions about how the direct ministerial appointment process, and wider operation of government, can be strengthened.
The Government will continue to go further to strengthen standards in public life, including by looking again at how ministers and senior officials declare and publish their financial interests, how transparency around lobbying is enforced, and whether the rules on post‑employment activity are fit for purpose in preventing unfair access to, or influence within, government.
The Prime Minister has written to the Ethics and Integrity Commission, asking them to review current arrangements relating to financial disclosures for ministers and senior officials, transparency around lobbying and the Business Appointment Rules. The Government will swiftly respond to any recommendations to bolster standards in public life.
Alongside this, the Government will review the National Security Vetting system, including lessons learned from Peter Mandelson’s developed vetting.
The Government has already confirmed that, in future, diplomatic appointments will not be announced until security vetting has been completed.
To drive this work forward, Baroness Anderson, Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, has been appointed to work on standards policy and to deliver the Government’s agenda on ethical standards and constitutional affairs.
Ministers have asked the Lords Conduct Committee to review the Code of Conduct to consider what changes are required to ensure peers can be removed when they have brought the House into disrepute. Ministers are also exploring whether the Committee can tighten rules on lobbying and paid advocacy to bring the Lords in line with the Commons.
In parallel, the Government has also committed to bringing forward legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers as soon as possible. This work will build on progress to reform the second chamber, such as the upcoming removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.
These further steps add to the action the Government has already taken to raise standards — including publishing a new Ministerial Code, establishing the Ethics and Integrity Commission, strengthening the powers of the Independent Adviser, and reforming the business appointments system.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is supporting the strengthening of the due diligence and security vetting processes for politically appointed Heads of Mission. This includes introducing individual due diligence-specific interviews with proposed candidates and ensuring politically appointed Ambassadors will have to undergo security vetting before they are appointed.
The government is also looking at assurance processes for high-profile Direct Ministerial Appointments across government, ensuring there are robust measures in place with further details on this work to be set out in due course.
The Government recognises that the Mandelson case has raised serious concerns about standards and inflicted real damage on people’s trust in politics. While the specifics of that case are now a matter for the police, it has exposed the gaps in whether the systems designed to uphold integrity are strong enough.
Taken together, these measures show this Government’s determination to address the issues raised and uphold integrity in public life by strengthening the rules, improving transparency, and restoring confidence in how government operates.
The First Minister’s Independent Advisers on the Ministerial Code have concluded their investigation into the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and Home Affairs Angela Constance.
The Advisers concluded that Ms Constance unintentionally breached two provisions of the Ministerial Code. They conclude that:
“…the two breaches were inadvertent without any deliberation or intention to mislead.”
As part of their role, the Advisers can provide advice on any sanction that the First Minster should impose. In this case their advice on sanctions states that this is:
“…at the lower end of the spectrum provided for in the Code and therefore does not call for anything beyond a reprove which should be formal and in writing accompanied by a statement to Parliament by Ms Constance…”
First Minister John Swinney has accepted the conclusions and recommendations in full. In line with the terms of reference of the Independent Advisers, the report has been published by the Scottish Government. Ms Constance will make a statement to Parliament today.
First Minister John Swinney said: “I greatly value the important and impartial role of the Independent Advisers on the Ministerial Code and I am grateful to the Advisers for concluding their investigation promptly.
“I set up this system of Independent Advisers so that they could call in any issue they feel needs to be examined under their own authority and make recommendations as they see fit. They have exercised their ability to examine this case and make recommendations on sanctions. That provides real assurance that there is appropriate, independent scrutiny of Ministers.
“I therefore accept the Independent Advisers’ conclusions, including that Ms Constance acted without any intention to mislead. The requirements of the Independent Advisers’ report will be followed in full.”
The beleaguered BBC faces a growing crisis this morning following the resignation of two senior figures.BBC Director-General Tim Davie announced his intention to leave the BBC last night and he was followed by CEO of BBC News Deborah Turness, who has also resigned.
The resignations following the revelation of another ‘mistake’ at the BBC.
This time, the Telegraph newspaper exposed editing of a Donald Trump speech for a Panorama programme had spliced two parts of a speech together, making it appear that Trump was explicitly encouraging the Capitol Hill riots of January 2021.
The edit is clearly misleading but the BBC’s failure to act on the revelation quickly enough calls into question the broadcaster’s already damaged reputation for honesty, impartiality and integrity. Without trust, a Public Service Broadcaster has nothing.
BBC Chairman Samir Shah said: “This is a sad day for the BBC. Tim has been an outstanding Director-General for the last five years. He has propelled the BBC forward with determination, single-mindedness and foresight.
“He has had the full support of me and the Board throughout. However, I understand the continued pressure on him, personally and professionally, which has led him to take this decision today. The whole Board respects the decision and the reasons for it.
“Tim has given 20 years of his life to the BBC. He is a devoted and inspirational leader and an absolute believer in the BBC and public service broadcasting. He has achieved a great deal. Foremost, under his tenure, the transformation of the BBC to meet the challenges in a world of unprecedented change and competition is well underway.
“Personally, I will miss his stamina, good humour and resilience and I will miss working with him. I wish him and his family the very best for the future.
“This is an important time for the Corporation and the Board and I will continue to work with Tim in the interim while we conduct the process to appoint his successor.”
Tim Davie sent the following note to staff yesterday:
‘I wanted to let you know that I have decided to leave the BBC after 20 years. This is entirely my decision, and I remain very thankful to the Chair and Board for their unswerving and unanimous support throughout my entire tenure, including during recent days.
‘I am working through exact timings with the Board to allow for an orderly transition to a successor over the coming months.
‘I have been reflecting on the very intense personal and professional demands of managing this role over many years in these febrile times, combined with the fact that I want to give a successor time to help shape the Charter plans they will be delivering.
‘In these increasingly polarised times, the BBC is of unique value and speaks to the very best of us. It helps make the UK a special place; overwhelmingly kind, tolerant and curious.
‘Like all public organisations, the BBC is not perfect, and we must always be open, transparent and accountable. While not being the only reason, the current debate around BBC News has understandably contributed to my decision.
‘Overall the BBC is delivering well, but there have been some mistakes made and as Director-General I have to take ultimate responsibility.
‘Our organisation is a critical ingredient of a healthy society, as well as a thriving creative sector. We should champion it, not weaponise it.
‘Despite a hugely competitive market, I am proud that the BBC remains the most trusted news brand globally. We have continued to ensure that it is used by almost everyone in the UK as well as hundreds of millions of people globally.
‘Despite the inevitable issues and challenges, our journalism and quality content continues to be admired as a gold standard. Our transition to a digital organisation has been deeply impressive, and our thriving commercial businesses are admired globally. Also, our work together on ensuring that we have the right culture has been important and motivating. I could not be more impressed by what you are achieving.
You will ask why now, why this moment?
‘I am BBC through and through, having spent the last 20 years of my life working for this organisation as Director of Marketing, Communications and Audiences, Director of Audio and Music, acting Director-General and Chief Executive of BBC Studios.
‘I care deeply about it and want it to succeed. That is why I want to create the best conditions and space for a new DG to come in and positively shape the next Royal Charter. I hope that as we move forward, a sensible, calm and rational public conversation can take place about the next chapter of the BBC.
‘This timing allows a new DG to help shape the next Charter. I believe we are in a strong position to deliver growth.
‘Thank you again, it has been a wonderful ride, which I have loved. I count myself very lucky to have served as DG no.17. I will have a proper chance to see many of you before I go but I have been incredibly proud to lead the BBC as DG for over five years. It is a precious UK institution and you are a world-class team. Thank you all for the tireless support and friendship.
‘I will always be a passionate cheerleader for civilised society, a strong BBC and a thriving UK.’
Best wishes,
Tim
In a message to BBC colleagues last night, CEO of News Deborah Turness said:
Dear all,
I have never been more proud of the work that you do every day. You really are the best of the best.
I have taken the difficult decision that it will no longer be my role to lead you in the collective vision that we all have: to pursue the truth with no agenda.
The ongoing controversy around the Panorama on President Trump has reached a stage where it is causing damage to the BBC – an institution that I love.
As the CEO of BBC News and Current Affairs, the buck stops with me – and I took the decision to offer my resignation to the Director-General last night.
In public life leaders need to be fully accountable, and that is why I am stepping down. While mistakes have been made, I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong.
In a polarised world, BBC News journalism is more vital than ever, and I could not be prouder of the work that you do. Together we have bucked the global trend, to grow trust in BBC News, and I want to thank you, wherever you are in the world, for your courageous work to deliver that.
My plea to you: please keep the courage to continue our mission. I’m only sorry that I won’t be there to lead and champion your brilliant journalism.
It has been a great privilege to work with you all.
I will now work with Tim to plan an orderly handover to ensure that my decision to step away causes the least disruption possible to the important work that you do.
With very best wishes,
Deborah
Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy said: “I want to thank Tim Davie for his service to public broadcasting over many years. He has led the BBC through a period of significant change and helped the organisation to grip the challenges it has faced in recent years.
“The BBC is one of our most important national institutions. Every day, it tells the story of who we are – the people, places and communities that make up life across the UK.
“Now more than ever, the need for trusted news and high quality programming is essential to our democratic and cultural life, and our place in the world.
“As a government, we will support the Board as it manages this transition and ensure that the Charter Review is the catalyst that helps the BBC to adapt to this new era and secures its role at the heart of national life for decades to come.”
Commenting on the resignation of BBC Director-General Tim Davie, Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee Dame Caroline Dinenage MP said: “The decision by Tim Davie to step down is regrettable given the huge commitment to the BBC and public service broadcasting he has demonstrated during his time at the helm, but restoring trust in the corporation must come first.
“The BBC Board must now begin the long process of rebuilding the corporation’s reputation both at home and abroad, after the damage caused by what has become a seemingly constant stream of crises and missteps.
“The Committee will be meeting on Tuesday to consider the BBC Chair’s response to our letter and next steps.
“At the same time the Government should bring forward the Charter Review process so the public and Parliament can help shape the future direction of the BBC.”
The Committee wrote to BBC Chair Samir Shah on Tuesday asking what action is being taken over concerns raised by a former adviser to the corporation’s editorial standards body, Michael Prescott.
Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said: “It’s right that Tim Davie and Deborah Turness have finally taken responsibility and resigned from the BBC. But let’s be honest, this has been a catalogue of serious failures that runs far deeper.
“The Prescott report exposed institutional bias that cannot be swept away with two resignations – strong action must be taken on all the issues it raised.
“The culture at the BBC has not yet changed. BBC Arabic must be brought under urgent control. The BBC’s US and Middle East coverage needs a full overhaul. And on basic matters of biology, the corporation can no longer allow its output to be shaped by a cabal of ideological activists.
“The new leadership must now deliver genuine reform of the culture of the BBC, top to bottom – because it should not expect the public to keep funding it through a compulsory licence fee unless it can finally demonstrate true impartiality.”
The Liberal Democrats tweeted: ‘A free, independent BBC is vital to a free, informed democracy. Don’t let Trump’s America become Farage’s Britain’.
Josh Wheeler, Founder of Be Broadcast, commented: “From a communications perspective, this is one of the most significant media moments in years.
“It is uncomfortable to see one political figure trigger such disruption across major media institutions. That should not happen, but it shows how fragile trust in journalism has become and how quickly perception can define reality.
“Perception is now reality – so even a question mark is enough to close people’s minds.
“What stands out is the speed of the BBC’s response. This is not a corporation hiding behind bureaucracy; it is one taking decisive action to protect its reputation before the damage hardens. It is strategic crisis management.
“Do I believe Tim Davie and Deborah Turness needed to go? Probably not. But by acting early, the BBC is showing it understands how modern reputations work. The court of public opinion moves faster than any internal inquiry, and being the antidote before the venom sets in is sometimes the only way to preserve credibility.
“If the leaked memo encouraged the merging of the Trump clips, that strikes at the core of editorial integrity. Accuracy, intent, and transparency are the foundations of trust. Once those are blurred, the entire communications framework begins to crack.
“All of this is happening during a Charter Review, when every BBC decision is under a microscope. In that context, this level of accountability sends a powerful signal. It shows that the BBC still understands leadership is as much about perception as process.
“There is also a wider lesson here for those in public life. Politicians, in particular, would do well to mirror the same “buck stops with me” principle shown by Davie and Turness. Accountability is not just good ethics; it is good communication.
“What happens next will decide whether this becomes a reputational reset or a reputational scar. The BBC must now focus on transparency and openness. It needs to show how it will strengthen editorial safeguards, rebuild confidence, and reaffirm its role as a trusted, independent broadcaster.
“The BBC’s strength has always been its willingness to face uncomfortable truths. This may be one of those moments where doing so, however painful, proves exactly why it still matters.”
TheScottish Government says lessons will be learned from the Scottish Government’s handling of harassment complaints, following the publication yesterday of the parliamentary inquiry’s report.
Responding to the findings of the Committee on the Scottish Government’s Handling of Harassment Complaints (SGHHC), Deputy First Minister John Swinney said it was clear that the women who had raised complaints had been let down.
Deputy First Minister John Swinney said: “I welcome the report of the Committee, which, alongside the independent report produced by James Hamilton and externally led review by Laura Dunlop QC, will assist the Scottish Government’s in learning lessons for the future.
“I also welcome the Committee’s acknowledgement that the Scottish Government was motivated by doing the right thing – creating a culture and procedure for investigating any claims of harassment.
“I agree with the Committee’s finding that James Hamilton’s report is the most appropriate place to address the question of whether or not the First Minister breached the Ministerial Code. He found there was no breach.
“The Scottish Government has acknowledged that it made mistakes and that these led to the Judicial Review being conceded, and I know that this had a real, and damaging, impact for the women who raised the complaints. We have apologised for this and we do so unreservedly again today.
“I remain absolutely determined that the Scottish Government should ensure this does not happen again and that together we create a culture where these behaviours do not arise.
“Given the timing of the report it is not possible to respond fully and in detail, not least because the three reports have overlapping areas of interest, and some recommendations are in conflict with those in other reports.
“Together, all three reports highlight a range of important issues and provide the basis for improvement work which now be taken forward in consultation with others including the Parliament, Trades Unions, and those with lived experience.
“The Scottish Government will carefully consider the recommendations from the Committee, alongside the other two review reports, in order to put improvements and an implementation plan in place.”
Mr Swinney chose not to address the committee’s contention that the First Minister mislead parliament, referring instead to Mr Hamilton’s findings.
But the Hamilton report clearly states: “It is for the Scottish Parliament to decide whether they were in fact misled”.
The committee DID decide … and found the First Minister guilty.
Mr Hamilton also expressed ‘deep frustration’ at redactions made to his report.
In a note accompanying the published report he stated: “A redacted report that effectively erases the role of any such individual in the matters investigated in the report cannot be understood by those reading it, and presents an incomplete and even at times misleading version of what happened.
“It is therefore impossible to give an accurate description of some of the relevant events dealth with in the report while at the same time complying with the court orders.
“I am deeply frustrated that applicable court orders will have the effect of preventing the full publication of a report which fulfils my remit and which I believe it would be in the public interest to publish.”
The Conservatives, the biggest opposition party at Holyrood, initiated a vote of No Confidence in the First Minister, but with the Greens supporting the government – and both Labour and the Lib Dems abstaining – the Tory motion was doomed to failure.
Nicola Sturgeon will face her final First Minister’s Questions session of this parliament later today; I wonder what the questions will be about!
Then, the next test comes in six weeks time when Scotland goes to the polls in the Holyrood elections.
Openness and transparency are the key foundations of any democracy. But today we find too much of our politics is shrouded in secrecy. Too often voters remain unsure about who is behind the messages they read, who is behind the information that shapes their political views, and ultimately their votes. In no area is this truer than online campaigning (writes JESSICA BLAIR).
Nine months on from the general election, we still have little idea how much money was spent in the campaign. But even when the data is published by the Electoral Commission, huge gaps will remain in our understanding of how voters were targeted – and by whom.
Democracy is about empowering citizens so that they can actively take part in our political processes and make an informed decision at the ballot box. Transparency, fairness and accountability in political campaigning are key to ensuring this is possible. But while technology offers huge opportunities for political engagement, the current system – if it can be called that – is an unregulated Wild West.
Indeed, the Electoral Commission’s own post-election research found that ‘[m]isleading content and presentation techniques are undermining voters’ trust in election campaigns’ and that the ‘significant public concerns about the transparency of digital election campaigns risk overshadowing their benefits’.
Democracy in the Dark, a new report commissioned by the Electoral Reform Society and written by Dr Katharine Dommett and Dr Sam Power, sheds light on campaigning in the 2019 general election.
For the first time, the authors reveal how much was spent on social media platforms by campaigners and parties during the election, and track the rise of non-party ‘outriders’, with all the associated secrecy.
However, it’s not enough to just point out the risks. Dommett and Power also summarise the many sensible, proportionate and easily implementable recommendations, around which there is broad and cross-party consensus, as to how we can restore trust in our democratic processes.
These reforms would shine a light on the murky world of unregulated online campaigning, focusing on five key areas: 1. Money; 2. Non-party campaigns; 3. Targeting; 4. Data; 5. Misinformation.
Many of the recommendations in this report echo existing calls to modernise electoral law to help rebuild trust in our democratic system. Recommendations include closing funding loopholes, creating national standards for social media ad transparency and ensuring voters can easily see who is targeting them and why.
Since we published our report Reining in the Political Wild West in 2019, countless calls have been made across the political spectrum in support of reform and there continues to be strong and long-standing cross-party support to tame the unregulated Wild West of online political campaigning.
Yet despite repeated calls for reform, little action has been taken. Strikingly, far from becoming more transparent, the authors find that in the wake of the Cambridge Analytica scandal, parties and campaigners have become even more cautious about disclosing information about their campaign activities online.
In terms of progress, the most significant step has been the launch of a consultation on extending the use of imprints to include online election material – a necessary step, but which on its own is woefully insufficient.
Such limited efforts have further been undermined by alleged threats to abolish the Electoral Commission if it cannot be ‘radically overhauled’. Rather than enhancing the Commission’s powers and resources so that it can tackle the challenges of the modern age, the body tasked with protecting our democracy is under unprecedented attack.
With elections due to take place across the UK in May 2021, we cannot let the urgent task of ensuring our electoral integrity be kicked into the long grass once more.
