LETTER: UK OGN > Minister Lopez: Public Standards Commitment in the UK’s 5th National Action Plan for Open Government.
Julia Lopez MP
Parliamentary Secretary
Cabinet Office
70 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2AS
7th September 2021
Dear Minister
Re: Public Standards Commitment in the UK’s 5th National Action Plan for Open Government.
We are writing to express our serious disappointment and real concern at the government’s decision to rule out a Public Standards commitment in the fifth National Action Plan (NAP) and to ask that you reconsider.
Whilst appreciative that any co-creation process requires two willing participants, and that the government is within its rights to reject proposals from civil society, the reasons for our disappointment are set out below:
- It was a longstanding request, approved by yourself
A commitment on Public Standards was first suggested in November 2020 at a strategic discussion with government officials on the forthcoming NAP. It was then agreed to include Public Standards in a list of commitments to be progressed at the first Multistakeholder Forum in April 2021 – a meeting which you co-chaired alongside the chair of the UK Open Government Network.
- The need for a commitment
The Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) in their Standards Matter 2 report found four areas of standards regulation that require significant reform: ‘the Ministerial Code and the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests; the business appointment rules and the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; transparency around lobbying; and the regulation of public appointments.’
Just as the CSPL sees the need for reform, so too does civil society. Public Standards is the most subscribed of all the topics proposed for the 5th NAP, with 45 applicants from organisations including the Institute of Government, MySociety and Transparency International UK to the Open Data Institute, Local Government Association and Spotlight on Corruption. The CSPL, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), and the Boardman review are all due to issue final reports over the next few months on reforms needed to the UK’s Standards framework. Civil society engagement and co-creating a reform agenda would be a very powerful way to show that the government is serious about standards in public life, and about implementing the recommendations from these independent reviews.
- The credibility of the UK on the international stage
As host to the G7, the UK has highlighted strengthening international action on corruption as a priority for Interior Ministers. It is now essential the UK shows it is serious about playing a leadership role in fighting corruption by committing to taking action at home on getting its own house in order, particularly in the run up to the Summit for Democracy, the Open Government Partnership summit in Korea, and with the UK government’s new role on the Open Government Steering Committee.
Several of the CSPL’s recommendations are the same as those already made by the UN in its review of UK implementation of the UN Convention Against Corruption over two years ago – recommendations which remain unimplemented. In its G7 statement to the special session of the UN General Assembly on corruption in June this year, the G7 under the UK’s leadership highlighted that implementation of anti-corruption conventions was a key priority. It is therefore deeply concerning that the UK itself has taken so few steps to implement these recommendations made by the UN. The inclusion of Public Standards in the NAP process would help show that the UK has a credible plan for doing so.
- The credibility of the NAP process
The omission of a commitment on Public Standards would significantly erode the credibility of the entire NAP process. This is particularly significant in light of the UK’s recent election to the OGP Steering Committee. The omission will be seen as a failure to lead by example, by promoting the values and principles of the initiative and adhering to OGP processes to co-create ambitious reforms. One civil society representative upon hearing of the potential omission described it as ‘shocking.’ It is likely this would be the consensus view. The development of a NAP is a fragile process. Co-creation is reliant on trust; innovation is reliant on parties challenging possibilities. We hope you welcome this challenge. It is still possible to develop a commitment on Public Standards. But it would require your urgent intervention to support officers to make it so. We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
UK Open Government Network Steering Committee