Tim Durrant

A parliamentary question from Baroness Finn: To ask His Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent on 21 July (HLWS867), what legal mechanism will be used to require a minister to repay severance payments following a breach of the Business Appointment Rules. Answered by Baroness Anderson, 31 July 2025: The Ministerial Code is clear that the Business Appointment Rules apply to former ministers after they leave office. Ministers will also be expected to sign waivers to confirm that they will repay their severance payment in the event they are found to have seriously breached the Business Appointment Rules.

The new requirement that ministers repay their severance payments if they break the revolving door rules is based on an "expectation" that ministers will sign something committing to do so. Interesting- I think this is the first time ministers have been asked to sign their commitment to the rules?

Civil service pay is another interesting story in this year's stats, with real terms pay ticking up again as expected...

Starmer lays down the rules | Institute for Government Doug Chalmers joins the team to discuss the government's new ethics and standards plan.

🎙️Podcast | Starmer lays down the rules

Doug Chalmers, who will chair the new Ethics and Integrity Commission, joins the Inside Briefing team for an exclusive interview.

🎧Listen here:
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/podcast/star...

and give them proper support too - for constituency and parliamentary work. but spending more money on politics and politicians is never popular

This is also a good point! And if people take the paycut to do it for a year or two, as good deed, you then risk even higher churn of ministers than we have now

So yes, appoint ministers who aren't MPs - there are no formal rules why not (though now I think about it, the legislation on salaries might make it difficult to pay them, if you don't make them peers). But be aware there are other ways to bring in expertise, and be aware of what you'd lose too...

So what can ministers who want more expert support do? Bring in more expert special advisers, for one! If ministers want to get lots of technical experts, they should go ahead. Many spads are party political people first and foremost - more subject experts would be no bad thing

And even less tangibly, there's something very important about being elected in our system. Look at the polling on House of Lords reform! The phrase "unelected bureaucrat" is seen as so damning... I think any government that brought in many non-elected ministers would face lots of criticism

Then there's the party-management point - governments use patronage to keep MPs in line: if you vote with us, you might get a job in the future. If you're going to remove 30-100 of those jobs, what carrots have you got for your MPs, particularly when the going gets tough?

More specifically, having the constituency link helps ministers challenge and add context to the advice they get from their departments - how is this policy playing out in their local schools/job centres/police force/etc? Those real-world, non-Whitehall, views are essential to making good policy

For one, ministers generally in our system *aren't* subject-matter experts (though there are exceptions) - that's what the civil service is (/should be) there for! Ministers are there to bring political nous and direction - which they get, in part, from being embedded in their party and constituency

Are we doing the "do ministers need to be MPs" debate again?

No, of course they don't - and many governments do bring in experts/big hitters by putting people in the Lords. But getting rid of the MP link across all of cabinet would be a huge change - and may not have the effects people want...

Happy civil service statistics release day to all who celebrate!

Lots more to come from colleagues @jackworlidge.bsky.social, @hcdunlop.bsky.social, and @alexgathomas.bsky.social, but some initial thoughts on turnover, and the possibility that churn is hiding in the stats...

Keir Starmer’s new communication chief must prioritise capability building inside government | Institute for Government David Dinsmore has a big job to do as head of the Government Communications Service.

The new head of the Government Communication Service, David Dinsmore, was officially announced last night

Here’s my take - Dinsmore’s job is to focus on the govt’s comms plumbing and leave the street-fighting to No10

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/keir...

This is well worth a read.

Insightful take by @alexgathomas.bsky.social for @instituteforgovernment.org.uk
on the appointment of David Dinsmore as the new head of the Government Communication Service

A headline from a gov.uk press release in all caps: PERMANENT SECRETARY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS APPOINTED

IS HIS FIRST INNOVATION GOING TO BE MAKING EVERYTHING SHOUTY?

can't remember which overseas territory it was, but i remember being told they were shocked by their first female governor, because she didn't bring a wife to organise the social calendar

Rachel Reeves should allow local tourist taxes | Institute for Government If mayors use the ‘right to request’ to call for tourist taxes, then the government should say yes.

if Mayors ask to be allowed to levy tourist taxes, let them - @instituteforgovernment.org.uk blog by me and @tompope.bsky.social www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/rach... - time to end HMT control freakery

sounds a bit like the UK govt ban on having civil servants on panels... equally counterproductive

The ICO is taking action against the Cabinet Office because of lengthy and unexplained FOI delays. In a new practice recommendation the ICO is highly critical of the Cabinet Office approach to FOI, telling it to supply quarterly updates for monitoring of its future performance.

Minor gripe but do you "recall" cabinet? Isn't the cabinet always the cabinet, they're still governing throughout recess. Whereas parliament does take a break and therefore needs to be recalled if the government wants to discuss something with MPs...

Hybrid bills: Parliament’s role in delivering major infrastructure | Institute for Government How to improve the hybrid bill legislative process.

Hybrid bills: Parliament’s role in delivering major infrastructure

@jackpannell.bsky.social and Patrick McAlary uncover key issues around hybrid bills and provide recommendations that will assist future infrastructure projects.

Read the report:
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

Hybrid bills: Parliament’s role in delivering major infrastructure | Institute for Government How to improve the hybrid bill legislative process.

New report from my colleagues @jackpannell.bsky.social & @paddy-mcalary.bsky.social on hybrid bills and parliament's role in delivering the government's major infrastructure projects

Excellent insight into these bills and the reform that's needed

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publication/...

The bizarre thing about this announcement is that we have had to wait a year for it.. I had assumed that the Ethics and Integrity Commission would be a week one announceable for the new govt to show how different it was from its Conservative predecessors

Labour’s Ethics and Integrity Commission starts the process of rebuilding standards in public life | Institute for Government The system of upholding standards in public life remains an ongoing process.

So now we know what the government's Ethics and Integrity Commission will do!

I've had a look for @instituteforgovernment.org.uk - lots of positives here, but it's only one step along the way...

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/labo...

Details still to come, but this sounds like some sensible steps forward. Will be watching closely to see what the government says

New from me and @sophiedaud.bsky.social on the government's new democratic reform strategy
-Lots of good detail & great to see so much consultation/collaboration
-Argument for votes at 16 rests on ⬆️ participation & engagement
-But democratic knowledge & citizenship education is a glaring omission

Labour’s Best Start in Life Strategy has got off to a good start – now comes the hard part | Institute for Government The government’s early years strategy signals strong intent, but will require confident, careful steering to make it a reality.

Labour’s Best Start in Life Strategy has got off to a good start – now comes the hard part www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/comment/labo...

White quotes @gilesyb.bsky.social “you can either be good as a special adviser or you can be famous”

Cites Geoffrey Norris who was business adviser for 10 years and so unknown that media couldn’t even find a photo of him.

1/ The government’s response to the open letter co-ordinated by @instituteforgovernment.org.uk (@drhannahwhite.bsky.social @alexgathomas.bsky.social) on civil servants speaking in public is not only disappointing, but also surprising...