Nolan Principles

Joe Powell Excerpts

Thursday 12th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on securing the debate. Trust in politics is one of the big challenges of our time. It has never been particularly high, but at the moment, Britain’s trust in politics is among the lowest in western Europe. There are obviously many theories as to why that might be, but, from my experience before coming to this place of working on open government in over 70 countries, I recognise that there are ways in which we could reverse the trend. That is part of what this debate is about. My strong belief is that it is about a combination of transparency and accountability plus delivery on the issues that our constituents care about. Those two things do not need to be in tension, although some try to argue that; they can be complementary.

The big opportunity coming up for the Government is the White Paper on rewiring the state. I am personally very excited about that, because of the term “taking on unaccountable government”. I hope that there is space in that vision to articulate why open government, transparency and opportunities for public participation lead to better decisions and better government. It is about ensuring that citizens have a voice, and that the state is accountable for decisions and failures are learned from and not covered up.

I was therefore really glad that the Prime Minister committed to working with me on justice for Grenfell—a tragedy that would not have happened had the Nolan principles been followed by the leadership of the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I agree with the chair of the Ethics and Integrity Commission and my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) that more needs to be done on local government. That is an important commitment in the Government’s anti-corruption plan.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s horror and disgust at what the Moore-Bick inquiry has uncovered about the conduct of quite a number of bodies and people that led to the Grenfell tragedy. It was a system failure, and the question of who takes responsibility for system failures is much more important. The problem with just applying rules is that they do not necessarily address system failures, because they are about culture, attitude and behaviour. That is what we need to address and demonstrate leadership on, as we are figures in public life.

[Joe Powell]

I agree that culture is a huge part of this. The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea is belatedly undergoing what it calls a culture review, but I fear that it may fall into the category of reviews that may not necessarily lead to the change we want, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier. Let us see what happens; I want to keep an open mind.

I also support the idea of a national oversight mechanism —I know the Cabinet Office is doing work on this. If we are going to spend time, energy and resources on inquests and inquiries, it is important that the recommendations are tracked and monitored; otherwise, it feels to me that we may defeat the point. Of course, the Hillsborough law—the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, which I hope will become an Act very soon—may be a big step forward on the duty of candour.

I want to cover two areas. First, there is a huge amount to welcome in the Representation of the People Bill, particularly on foreign money in politics and the Rycroft recommendations, and we will shortly get that Bill back from the other place. There were so many good suggestions that could not find their way into the Bill, which is why the Government were right to set up a task and finish group. I hope the ideas that come through that group will see the light of day, potentially in future legislation. I really welcome the Bill, but I do not want to lose the ideas that we could not get through this time. I really hope that when the Electoral Commission looks at spending caps during the regulated period, it will take an expansive view and think about whether we need to have wider ones, given the nature of modern campaigning, which is essentially permanent.

The second main area that I want to cover is lobbying reform. The July report from the Ethics and Integrity Commission was a really thorough and good piece of work that contained lots of recommendations about lobbying. At the moment, the public record captures only 4% of lobbyists, because it is restricted to consultant lobbyists, and information is captured in disparate databases across Government, making it hard to track and make useful. We know from Greensill and the covid contracts that modern lobbying happens in lots of different ways, not just through formal meetings.

This is not about policing who the Government meet, because they should be meeting businesses, stakeholders and so on. It is about having the right to know what voices are informing major decisions, so that the public can make a judgment on whether the requirement to consult widely has been met. An initial step would be to clean up the number of different lobbying databases that we have, and to make them easier to understand and view. The report calls for legislation, and I asked at Cabinet Office orals a few weeks ago whether the Government were open to legislation. The Minister confirmed that they were, so I hope that is something we will see.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland said, it has too often taken a crisis to create the urgency to act on matters of ethics and integrity in politics. We can all name them: Greensill, the previous ambassador to the United States, the covid contracts, Owen Paterson and, of course, the multiple ongoing investigations by different bodies into Reform UK’s funding and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have informed him that I would say this. We now have an opportunity to create a reset moment for standards in public life, and the rewiring the state White Paper is a great opportunity to do so.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend refers to the wider rewiring of the state. As we move towards further devolution, does he agree that our local councillors need to be much more accountable? At the moment, even when they are sanctioned, all they are asked to do is apologise. That gets nowhere, because they do not bother to do so.

[Joe Powell]

I completely agree. I am a huge supporter of devolution, but it is important that the Government’s anti-corruption plan calls for a local audit office to look at finance and at codes of conduct for local councillors and senior officers. Of course, local government is required to follow the Nolan principles, but I am not sure that we have all the systems in place to track and monitor that, so I agree with my hon. Friend.

The first opportunity is to finish the job on the Representation of the People Bill and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, and the second is the White Paper on rewiring the state. My third and final suggestion is to have a “clean up Westminster” Bill in the next Session. It would bring together all the different elements on which we know action is needed, such as lobbying and second jobs, finishing the job on money in politics and sending a clear message to the public that open and accountable politics is central to this Government’s mission of rewiring the state in a way that delivers growth, opportunity and hope across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is willing to stand up and try to defend the record around Peter Mandelson. I will come to the points he has raised in just a few moments.

As I was saying, the former Prime Minister made assurances to this House, despite Mandelson having failed his vetting. It clearly shows that the Nolan principles of integrity, objectivity, honesty and openness were no longer guiding the former Prime Minister. While this scandal ended up costing him his job, which some may argue is the Nolan principle of accountability in action, unfortunately he tried to cling on to power by throwing the jobs of his chief of staff, Cabinet Secretary, head of the Foreign Office and director of communications in No. 10 under the bus first, along with, it seems, the two remaining Nolan principles of selflessness and leadership.

Governments, like fish, rot from the head down. I will not go on to list all the examples that occurred under that leadership, but it is worth noting that a donor was appointed to the civil service and the Treasury—and I will not go into the detail of the infamous Le Chameau wellies. All of this happened under Keir Starmer’s leadership; I do not think that service and respect will be his legacy. We now have a new Prime Minister, who took over two years into this Government promising to do things differently. I had hoped to see the Nolan principles upheld better under his leadership, but I do have concerns, and I will return to those shortly.

Turning to the ways in which we can improve standards in public life, the Government’s newly introduced Ethics and Integrity Commission published its first annual letter to the Prime Minister last month. As the Government do not yet appear to have responded to that letter, I hope that the Minister will enlighten the House as to the Government’s view on a number of points.

On public service appointments, for a while there have been delays, with fewer than one in five public service recruitment campaigns completed in line with the three-month target. In its letter, the commission expresses concerns that there is risk that the lengthy delays could deter the best candidates from entering public service. It would be useful to know what the Government are doing to speed up the public appointments process. The letter also pointed out that the 2021 Committee on Standards in Public Life report, “Upholding Standards in Public Life”,

“called for all future Independent Advisers to be appointed through an enhanced version of the current process for significant public appointments”.

Again, the House awaits the Government’s opinion on that proposal.

The commission further recommended that the cross-governmental task and finish team, announced in September, looking at political finance and the way in which political parties play a vital role in our democracy, should

“engage with all major political parties so that decisions are not seen to be enacted in a partisan manner”,

to ensure that

“reforms have democratic legitimacy and are more likely to endure.”

This Government have singularly failed at such an approach in their consultation up to this point. I hope that that can be addressed.

The previous Conservative Government pledged to develop a single database to collate and publish departmental returns. The commission’s letter says that work should begin, but this Labour Government have scrapped it. The Conservatives also pledged to modernise the business appointment rules and take a risk-based approach to considering applications. Again, the commission recommends that; again, Labour has failed to deliver. Those proposals would help to promote the Nolan principles, and both were recommended to the Prime Minister by the Ethics and Integrity Commission in its annual letter.

Similarly, under the Procurement Act 2023, the previous Conservative Government introduced a form of accountability for when rules are broken in the public sector by introducing the Debarment Review Service to prevent businesses that are failing to meet standards in their current Government contracts from winning more contracts. Like many MPs, my inbox has been full of horror stories from local constituents and their families who have been unable to access their public sector pensions due to the poor service that Capita is providing. We are all aware that Capita has failed on public service pensions, and I give credit to the Minister for the work that she is doing on that. I wish her all the best, but will she provide a specific update on whether she is considering use of the debarment service for Capita?

My speech has focused heavily on the Government’s conduct, but integrity, objectivity and accountability are for all public servants across the British state. The whole country was shocked by the rape gang scandal. Though the last Prime Minister smeared those calling for a national inquiry as jumping on a far-right bandwagon, we have heard allegations that some in authority, including in the police, local councils and social services, covered up cases because of concerns about so-called community relations, thinking it was more important to do that than to protect vulnerable young children from heinous predators.

It took relentless campaigning and finally, just days before they looked set to lose the vote in Parliament, the Government U-turned and agreed to a national inquiry. Hardly a shining example of the Nolan principles. Meanwhile, in the Senedd, Labour and Plaid Cymru voted against commissioning an independent inquiry, and in Scotland, the SNP Government held out against an inquiry for even longer, finally announcing a date for one just a week ago.

There are some serious questions for the Government to answer on whether they still believe in the Nolan principles of public life. This Labour Government have seen resignations of their homelessness Minister, anti-corruption Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Housing Secretary, and Transport Secretary, and all of that, we were told, because—

[Joe Powell]

What about your Prime Minister?