What is the ministerial code, and who enforces it?
A document setting out the standards of conduct expected of ministers — and the answer to who enforces it is the source of the persistent criticism: the Prime Minister, who is also bound by it.
What it covers:
The overarching duty to comply with the law and to uphold the administration of justice.
The Seven Principles of Public Life — selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership — which apply across public office generally.
Accountability to Parliament, including the requirement to give accurate and truthful information and to correct any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Knowingly misleading Parliament is stated to warrant resignation.
Conflicts of interest, and declaration and management of private interests.
Gifts and hospitality, with registration requirements.
Treatment of civil servants, including expectations about behaviour.
Use of government resources and the separation from party political activity.
Post-ministerial appointments, subject to advice from a separate body.
Who enforces it — and the problem. The Code is issued by the Prime Minister, and it is for the Prime Minister to determine whether a breach has occurred and what should follow. There is no independent adjudicator with binding power.
The Independent Adviser on Ministers' Interests investigates alleged breaches — but historically could only begin an investigation with the Prime Minister's agreement, and their findings are advice, not determination. Successive advisers have resigned over the handling of cases, which is the clearest indication of the tension in the role. Reforms have given the adviser a degree of initiative in starting investigations, and the ultimate decision remains with the Prime Minister.
Why this is criticised. A code enforced by the person it constrains, over colleagues whose continued service the Prime Minister may need politically, cannot function as an independent standards regime. Sanctions are a political judgement, not an outcome of a process.
The counter-argument is constitutional: ministers are accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, and an unelected adjudicator removing ministers would raise its own difficulties.
Related: the Committee on Standards in Public Life advises on standards generally; the Register of Members' Financial Interests and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards cover MPs as MPs.
General information about UK constitutional arrangements.