Relight My FOIA

The average member of the public probably hasn’t heard of the Propriety and Ethics Team (PET).

The unit, recently renamed the propriety and constitution team, sits at the heart of government in the Cabinet Office and performs a key public service role

It is responsible for advising on the handling of any potential conflicts of interest for ministers, as well as vetting those the prime minister proposes for ministerial office.

It also handles ethical concerns across central government, advises on public appointments, and oversees the honours system.

Given its key responsibilities one might think a significant amount of information would be available on how it works, what its standard case handling procedure is, how staff are hired for the unit, and how they are held accountable.

While the unit has been the place where some of the UK’s most powerful civil servants such as Sue Gray and Helen McNamara have served in key parts of their careers, a search of the government website reveals very little.

The matter of who watches the watchers is a key concern for any government, and the paucity of information about the PET’s function increases the risks that it does not function properly.

I’ve been trying to find out more about how the unit actually works. Those efforts have so far been rebuffed.

I’m keen to write more on the PET, so if you have experience of working with it or within it please do get in touch.

Chris Pincher

I first tried to request a copy of any reports the PET completed in relation to the appointment of Chris Pincher, the Conservative MP who resigned as an MP after parliamentary authorities found he had groped two men in the Carlton Club, in July 2022.

It later emerged that Boris Johnson had been warned of a previous complaint against Pincher for ‘inappropriate behaviour’ while he was a minister in the Foreign Office.

Establishing whether the PET specifically raised this matter with the former prime minister before the appointment is important.

If it was pushed through in the face of direct advice from the PET against this, it would raise questions about whether PET offers the right model to provide effective due diligence of the appointments process.

If PET was aware of the issues but did not properly flag them to the prime minister, it would raise questions about the performance of the team.

After more than a year of delays, a service complaint, and a complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the ICO finally reached a ruling, denying my request.

It is now, at long last, with the information tribunal. In the interim, a new government has come to power, reducing the accountability value of the information as a result of process delays as it becomes older.

Peter Bone

I have also tried to get hold of a copy of the equivalent PET report in relation to the appointment of former MP Peter Bone.

Bone was appointed as deputy leader of the House of Commons in July 2022 by Boris Johnson.

Last year, Bone was suspended for six weeks as an MP following an inquiry into his behaviour.

An investigation by Parliament’s watchdog, the Independent Expert Panel, found Bone broke sexual misconduct rules by indecently exposing himself to a staff member during an overseas trip.

It also upheld five allegations of bullying, including verbally belittling, physically striking and throwing things at the staff member.

I asked for a copy of Bone’s assessment by PET in October last year.

Again, there is a clear interest in whether PET had any information about concerns about Bone at the time of his allegation, whether these were communicated to the prime minister, and whether the appointment was made regardless.

The ICO ruled recently that the Cabinet Office must confirm whether it holds a copy of a report on him prepared ahead of his appointment as a minister. It has confirmed it does but refused to provide any information.

Even getting basic statistical information from the PET has proven a struggle.

This looks like it will also have to head to the tribunal, given the ICO’s previous position on Pincher.

Advice not followed

I requested data on the number of occasions PET advice related to the handling of a ministerial conflict of interest was not followed by that minister in December 2022.

This week, the ICO finally provided a ruling.

Despite it finding that transparency about the PET was “effectively limited to the team spending, ‘a lot of its time advising people on the best way to get government business done within the codes and rules’”, it refused to enforce disclosure, finding the public interest in transparency “is nevertheless insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in protecting the effective operation of the PET advice process.”

Another visit to the information tribunal will thus be required to shed any light on this.

Taking the ICO to court

Even where the ICO has attempted transparency enforcement activity against PET, the government has resisted, as I pointed out previously on this blog.

My request for further details of Rishi Sunak’s ministerial declaration of interests in April 2023 has also been long delayed, with the government hiring a KC to challenge the ICO’s attempt to view a copy of his declarations in court, with a hearing now listed for December.

Even if the ICO wins that hearing, it is likely to be many further months before it can decide on the public interest of the information’s release, and the government can then always take that decision to the tribunal.

Again, this has blocked disclosure at the time it would have been most useful for accountability, when Sunak was still in office, if there was material in the disclosure that deserved appropriate scrutiny.

Timing loopholes in FOI mean that as long as the government is willing to oppose disclosure, often at considerable taxpayer cost, transparency can be delayed for years.

In relation to the PET at least, it seems they are more than happy to do this.

Image credit: UK Government