Beef up departmental boards to police "revolving door", watchdog suggests

Written by Matt Foster on 24 October 2016 in News

Acoba suggests "senior, independent, board-level oversight" could help ensure compliance with rules governing post-Whitehall careers of former officials and ministers

Departmental boards could be given a greater role in scrutinising the new jobs of former civil servants, under plans floated by the so-called "revolving door" watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (Acoba).

MPs on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) are carrying out their latest inquiry into the work of Acoba, the committee which former ministers and senior officials are required to notify when taking up new jobs outside of Whitehall.

The rules are aimed at stopping former government insiders from trading on their contacts, but an inquiry carried by PACAC's predecessor committee in the last parliament said Acoba should be abolished, because it lacked "adequate powers and resources" to do its job properly.

Advisory Committee on Business Appointments beefs up disclosure requirements for top-level departures from government
ACOBA reveals advice to ex-Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude and former Treasury spad Rupert Harrison on private sector role
Jenkin: ‘Conspiracy’ on ACOBA

Instead, the MPs called for a new independent commissioner to be established by law to police the rules, and given the power to sanction former ministers and officials who failed to comply.

The government rejected that proposal, however, and PACAC is now looking again at the watchdog's work after identifying "ongoing challenges" in the way it vets appointments.

In newly-published written evidence to the group of MPs, Acoba acknowledges its limits as a merely advisory committee, with the final say on post-Whitehall appointments still resting with the prime minister.

But it insists that it considers each application "on its merits in light of the facts of each case", and suggests several ways that its work could be bolstered, including calling for a full cost-benefit analysis to be carried out into bringing in a statutory "prohibited period" for former officials and ministers. 

While Acoba says that such an analysis must be carried out either by the MPs or the government itself because of its own lack of resources, it suggests such an exercise should look into the "pros and cons" of limiting, by law, the ability of former government insiders to move into sectors they have "previously regulated or had policy responsibility for while in public office".

It adds: "Other specific factors likely to require consideration would include: how should such statutory restrictions be framed; what specific activities (such as lobbying) might be prohibited; what sanctions would apply to breaches, how would they be investigated and enforced, and by whom; what exemptions to statutory restrictions might be appropriate; whether a discretion would be required to dis-apply restrictions in some cases - e.g. where there was a clear public interest, and in whom might such a discretion be vested; and what time periods might be appropriate."

Acoba also sets out a series of changes it argues would strengthen its role without the need for a change in the law, including bringing in dedicated independent scrutiny to each department's board to ensure the organisation is complying with the revolving door rules.

Acoba's evidence says it would "welcome the appointment of a non-executive director on each departmental board with responsibility for oversight of the Business Appointments Rules".

It adds: "Senior, independent, board-level oversight would help to facilitate good governance of departments’ business appointment processes.

"This would both ensure the appropriate collation and retention of data needed when considering applications, and counter the possible perception of applicants being given preferential treatment by their former civil service colleagues in departments, whose advice the committee currently draws upon."

Last week Acoba came under fire from Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye magazine, who told PACAC's inquiry that it was "disgraceful" that former HM Revenue and Customs chief executive Dave Hartnett had been able to take on work with consultancy Deloitte and banking giant HSBC after leaving the civil service.

Hislop's Private Eye colleague Richard Brooks – himself a former HMRC official – said Acoba's most pressing task should be "clearing out the office and putting up the ‘sorry, we are closed’ sign".


Author Display Name
Matt Foster
About the author

Matt Foster is deputy editor of Civil Service World. He tweets as @CSWDepEd

Share this page
Editor's Pick
Promote as primary content
Not Promoted

Share this page

Further reading in our policy hubs


Please login to post a comment or register for a free account.



Submitted on 24 October, 2016 - 11:57
The ‘revolving door’ is one reason why public trust in Government and Public Sector institutions has fallen to a new low. This is because lobbying and corruption rear their ugly heads every time public money crosses the boundary between the Public Sector and the Private Sector. Whereas media focus is on the small number of high-profile political elite who shamelessly exploit their previous contacts and know-how they have accumulated whilst in the pay of the State to line their own pockets and unwittingly skew the market in favour of their new paymasters in the Private Sector, the journey made by thousands of ordinary public servants underneath them, who are also looking to follow the example set by their political masters and cash-in on this bonanza, has escaped scrutiny. Of course, everyone has a right to sell their labour in the free market to whomsoever they wish, for whatever price they can command. However, the brazen way the political elite have gone about exercising this freedom without any checks and controls on the way they go about disseminating privileged information about inner workings of Government is scandalous, and always to the detriment of taxpayers – which is what they promised they would protect whilst in the pay of the State! The military-political-industrial complex has been the original model for lobbying and corruption from the earliest of times – indeed, the career prospects of people in the pay of the State are inextricably linked to those with the means to produce weapons systems, facilitated by the ‘revolving door’ and intense lobbying behind the scenes where it matters most, in the corridors of power inhabited by the same, self-serving political elite. At a time when the headcount at UK MoD’s defence equipment acquisition organisation at Abbey Wood, Bristol is being forcibly slashed as part of the 2015 Spending Review settlement with the Treasury, there exists an extremely high risk that departing procurement officials, including those who have not previously taken part in the assessment of invitation to tender responses, will be persuaded to pocket corresponding memory sticks (or CDs) and offer them in return for employment, to competitors of owners of these same CDs – thereby transferring innovative design solutions and Intellectual Property Rights which can then be used by unscrupulous recipients, to grab a larger share of the defence market. Such behaviour only reinforces the view that lower-level defence procurement officials have nothing to offer potential employers in the Private Sector (unlike the political elite), except someone else’s property! And when these people arrive on Contractors’ premises, they promptly become a burden on fellow co-workers and the payroll because they do not have the necessary skills (due to being selected for reasons other than merit) as task performers to add value to the business, only costs. What’s more, because many Defence Contractors do not have a ‘Code on Ethical Behaviour in Business’ in place, they will not only happily accept such proprietary information without any qualms, but also encourage its unauthorised removal from MoD Abbey Wood – yet they would not want their own CDs to fall into the hands of their Competitors. Such is their twisted sense of morality! @JagPatel3 on twitter

Contact the author

The contact details for the Civil Service World editorial team are available on our About Us page.

Related Articles

Related Sponsored Articles