Guidance

Guidance on how to apply the UK government’s engagement standards

Published 14 March 2024

Applies to England

1. Purpose

The purpose of this guidance is to support UK government ministerial departments to apply the government’s new engagement standards when undertaking the following categories of engagement:

• ministerial engagement with individuals, organisations and groups outside the UK government
• Civil Service engagement with individuals, organisations and groups outside the UK government
• providing government grants (please see further guidance in section 4).
• appointments to government advisory bodies and groups (please see further guidance in section 4)

Exceptions are set out in section 4.

Central government officials and ministers should refer to this guidance when designing and undertaking due diligence processes to apply the government’s engagement standards and when making subsequent decisions on whether to engage external stakeholders.

2. Aims

External engagement is a fundamental part of what central government does. It covers a diverse range of activities that government undertakes with civil society organisations, groups and individuals to achieve the government’s policy commitments, including roundtables, community visits, meetings, working groups and more. There are, however, certain circumstances in which government may decide not to engage with certain individuals, organisations or groups that have contravened minimum standards of behaviour. Those minimum standards are set out in the engagement standards.

These engagement standards are designed to help officials to engage more widely whilst mitigating the risk of undertaking engagement that undermines government’s core aims, which are to maintain public confidence in government, uphold democratic values and protect the rights and freedoms of others. Engagement with individuals, organisations and groups that contravene these standards may bring His Majesty’s Government into disrepute, harm public confidence in government, and provide legitimacy to those that seek to undermine our shared values and the rights and freedoms of others.

Throughout this guidance, due diligence checks refer to checks carried out to enable officials or ministers to form a view on whether one or more of the engagement standards has been contravened.

This guidance is intended to support central government departments to:

• establish due diligence processes based on the engagement standards, so that departments can determine whether they have been contravened
• make decisions on whether to provide engagement, taking into account the results of due diligence checks

To ensure that the engagement standards achieve the UK government’s aims and result in the desired improvements to its engagement practices, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) will monitor and evaluate the implementation of the engagement standards in key policy and operational teams.

Both the engagement standards and this supporting guidance will be kept under review. They may be updated and amended to facilitate the continuous improvement of government’s engagement practices and to provide additional support in applying the standards for government departments.

3. Best practice for engagement

Government’s external engagement can strengthen our democracy, our policymaking and our society. By harnessing the skills, experience and knowledge of organisations and communities, government officials can help to build and maintain relationships, improve policy design and expand understanding of how different policies impact different communities.

Whenever and wherever it is undertaken, engagement should be both meaningful and purposeful. To this end, outlined below are some of the best practices that officials should aim for when carrying out engagement:

Aim 1: Engagement that promotes transparency

• Transparent engagement is the basis on which to build positive relationships with stakeholders and to carry out meaningful interactions.
• To allow for transparent engagement, it is important to first understand:
  • the purpose of engagement
  • the necessary steps and time-period required to drive engagement forward
  • how engagement may affect policy thinking and development
• Setting clear expectations with stakeholders regarding confidentiality and discretion, where appropriate, will build confidence and trust.

Aim 2: Wide breadth of representation in engagement

• Identifying a broad range of stakeholders to ensure a diverse range of voices helps to deepen government’s understanding of how its policy may impact communities.
• Where gaps are identified in the representation of voices, government officials should endeavour to work with members of representative organisations that have strong links within communities that are under-represented.

Aim 3: Maintain relationships with external stakeholders

• To form meaningful and beneficial relationships with stakeholders, it is necessary to create an environment in which stakeholders can share their knowledge, views and insight to aid two-way conversations.
• Officials should endeavour to be open with stakeholders about how frequently communication is likely to occur, the longevity of the communication and, where appropriate, how central to the policymaking process stakeholders may be.

4. When to apply the standards

The purpose of the engagement standards is to set out minimum standards for external engagement for all UK government ministerial departments. Once departments have the appropriate implementation processes in place, the three engagement standards are intended to apply to the following types of engagement with individuals, organisations or groups:

• ministerial engagement, i.e. any engagement that takes place between ministers and external individuals, organisations and groups out of the UK government
• Civil Service engagement, i.e. any engagement that takes place between civil servants and external individuals, organisations and groups out of the UK government
• government grants
• appointments to government advisory bodies and groups

The engagement standards will initially apply to these forms of engagement because they carry the greatest risk of reputational harm and harm to shared democratic values in the event that government engages with groups or individuals contravening the standards. In due course, the scope of the engagement standards may be expanded to include other forms of engagement.

Please note that:

• For government grants, departments should refer to their existing due diligence processes, including the Grants Functional Standard and Guidance for General Grants: Minimum Requirement 7 (PDF, 695 KB). The Cabinet Office is currently reviewing existing guidance for grants, including how the engagement standards should be incorporated into the grants due diligence process, and will be updating existing guidance to reflect this. If departments would like more detail about existing due diligence processes for grants and the tools available to departments to support their due diligence, they should contact the grants management team at the Cabinet Office.
• For any public or direct ministerial appointments, departments should ensure alignment between their existing due diligence procedures and these engagement standards, and ensure that they are effectively applied.

The engagement standards do not apply to:

• situations where there is a legal duty to undertake engagement, including law enforcement activity
• trade
• foreign diplomatic engagement
• engagement for the purposes of national security and defence
• engagement with public authorities, public officials or members of local, devolved or national legislatures
• UK government contracts (which are covered by existing procurement legislation)
• engagement in Northern Ireland by UK government ministerial departments

The engagement standards do not override any statutory framework or other legal requirements that apply to a particular engagement decision. The engagement standards are not intended to prevent government departments from adopting additional criteria for their engagement decisions.

There may also be circumstances (e.g., ad hoc, brief or emergency situations) where it is not appropriate or possible to undertake checks against the engagement standards.

5. Overview for applying the engagement standards

The department considering whether to conduct engagement should determine whether the proposed engagement falls within the scope of the engagement standards, and if so, it should determine what checks to carry out. Based on the outcome of the checks, the department should consider whether it is satisfied that the engagement standards have been contravened, and if so, they should take the contravention into account in reaching their engagement decision. All these decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis.

Individual departments are responsible for ensuring that their application of the engagement standards, including any due diligence checks that they carry out, complies with all applicable legal requirements. Departments should seek legal advice when devising and implementing processes for applying the engagement standards. They can also contact DLUHC’s Community Engagement Review Team for guidance.

6. Considerations for due diligence checks

When designing their due diligence processes there are several overarching considerations that departments should work through.

DLUHC are currently establishing their own processes to underpin the implementation of the engagement standards within the department, covering issues such as information to be provided to engagement partners and avenues for them to make representations where appropriate, and in due course will share more information about these processes with other government departments, to ensure consistency of approach where possible.

In the interim, we have provided below a high-level summary of some of the considerations for departments to take into account when designing their processes:

• Ensure data protection compliance: Before undertaking due diligence checks, departments should ensure that all necessary Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIA), privacy notices and data sharing agreements are in place. The privacy notice should in particular inform the public of the circumstances in which due diligence checks may be carried out, the types of data and sources of data that may be used in the checks, how long the results are kept for, what the results are used for, who they may be shared with and how they are stored. As part of the DPIA, departments should identify and assess any risks, and how these will be mitigated.

• Information sources: Departments should consider the sources of data that they propose to use for their due diligence checks, including their appropriateness, their reliability, gaps and limitations and the need for compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and other relevant legislation. The RIPA codes provide guidance on the types of checks that would or would not require authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

• Right of access: Departments should have arrangements in place for dealing with subject access and freedom of information requests. Guidance on these regimes, including possible exemptions, is available on the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) website.

• Public sector equality duty and duty not to discriminate in the exercise of public functions under equalities legislation: Departments should have regard to these duties when applying (and when designing the processes for applying) these engagement standards. Departments should consider carrying out an equality impact assessment and keeping it under regular review, and should put in place arrangements for monitoring how the engagement standards are being applied in practice. Decisions about compliance with the standards should be based solely on the evidence, and not on any other factor such as the type of extremism concern. Where possible, anonymised data should be analysed for trends and shared with DLUHC on the cases where a decision is made not to proceed with an engagement based on a contravention of the engagement standards.

The above list is not exhaustive, and departments should work with their respective legal and data protection teams to ensure that their processes are fully compliant with the relevant legal frameworks, such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and equalities legislation.

Due diligence checks can also potentially interfere with rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Departments should take this into account when considering what due diligence checks to carry out, taking care to ensure that any interference with a right protected under the ECHR is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of government’s core aims to maintain public confidence in government, uphold democratic values and protect the rights and freedoms of others.

For example, for a particular engagement, the minister responsible, or official acting on their behalf, may decide that it is not necessary and proportionate to check against all parts of Standard Three, or that criminal checks should be limited to very recent or certain types of financial crime. Factors to consider when deciding what checks to carry out against the engagement standards include:

• the context of the engagement, and the level of risk posed to the UK government’s core aims, which should be weighed up against potential interference with rights protected under the ECHR (for example, appointments to government advisory boards are likely to carry a high potential for bad actors to undermine democratic values)
• the relevance of each engagement standard to the engagement in hand (for example, due diligence checks against Standard Three on financial crime are likely to be highly relevant when awarding government grants, but may not be as relevant to engagement such as a policy roundtable on matters unrelated to finance)

Due diligence checks should be based on up-to-date information. Departments should consider how far back in time due diligence checks should go and should take the age of the information into account. If previous checks are used, departments should consider whether they remain accurate and suitable. Departments should identify who or what falls within the scope of the checks, including whether to confine checks to an organisation or include senior individuals linked to that organisation (e.g. directors, trustees). Departments should consider the extent to which individuals are representative of wider organisations and groups, and the relationship between umbrella organisations and their associated affiliates.

Checks must be relevant. Depending on the particular engagement standard that is being checked against, and depending on the nature of the individual, organisation or group, the checks may include review of corporate publications, media, news articles and publicly available social media commentary, alongside the use of existing government due diligence processes and tools (for example Cabinet Office’s Spotlight due diligence tool). Departments should also consider any limitations to the sources used, including gaps and reliability. Departments should seek to rely as much as possible on facts that are uncontroversial and clear to inform their decision-making.

Departments should consider the range of checks that are carried out, including checks for exculpatory material.

7. Using the standards to decide whether to undertake engagement

Once due diligence checks have been undertaken, there are further considerations relating to the decision on whether to undertake engagement. A decision not to engage with an individual, organisation or group has the potential to interfere with rights protected under the ECHR, including the right to private life, freedom of expression and association, and other rights and freedoms.

Particular regard should be given to the potential interference with these rights, ensuring that the engagement standards are applied in a proportionate manner when deciding whether to provide engagement or funding, taking into account the nature and aims of the proposed engagement; impacts on the individuals, organisations and groups concerned and on others; and all other relevant matters.

The engagement standards are contravened when individuals, organisations or groups fall within any of the descriptions provided in the standards.

Except in relation to Standard One, where a separate process applies (see section 8), it is for the minister responsible for deciding whether or not to engage, or officials acting on their behalf, to reach a view on whether the engagement standards have been contravened, taking into account the results of any due diligence checks that are carried out. Where the minister responsible for the engagement, or officials acting on their behalf, believes that the engagement standards have been contravened, it is for the minister, or officials acting on their behalf, to determine what weight, if any, to give to the contravention of the engagement standards in reaching their engagement decision.

Please note in particular the specific process for determining contraventions of Standard One in relation to the 2024 definition of extremism (see section 8).

When determining the weight that should be applied to contraventions of the engagement standards, ministers or officials acting on their behalf should consider factors such as:

• the context of the engagement and level of risk posed to the UK government’s core aims
• the time elapsed since any contravention of the engagement standards, and the severity and frequency of any contraventions
• whether the individual or organisation subject to due diligence checks has distanced themselves from past actions that contravene for the standards, for example in a public statement
• the relevance of contraventions to the engagement in question

Departments should also consider whether there are less onerous mitigation measures that could be put in place that could enable the engagement to proceed whilst also securing the government’s core aims.

A conclusion that an individual, organisation or group has contravened one or more of the engagement standards is not determinative. The minister responsible for the engagement, or officials acting on their behalf, should consider all relevant factors in their decision-making, including the severity of the consequences and the need to strike a fair balance between the rights of those affected and the interests of the general public.

Engagement decisions and rationales, as well as any findings captured during due diligence checks, must be stored and deleted as per departmental guidance and in line with data compliance requirements.

8. Additional guidance on the engagement standards

Standard One: In the opinion of the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, demonstrate ‘extremism’ as set out in the 2024 definition.

What is in scope?

Extremism is the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred or intolerance, that aims to:

1. negate or destroy the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; or
2. undermine, overturn or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights; or
3. intentionally create a permissive environment for others to achieve the results in (1) or (2)

The types of behaviour that could constitute extremism include:

• behaviour against a group, or members of it, that seeks to negate or destroy their rights to live equally under the law and free of fear, threat, violence, and discrimination
• attempts to undermine, overturn, or replace the UK’s system of liberal parliamentary democracy and democratic rights
• enabling the spread of extremism: intentionally creating a permissive environment for behaviours above

The above is a summary and should be considered alongside the full 2024 definition of extremism. This provides more detail and ensures, for example, that this standard respects civil liberties such as freedom of expression, religion, political belief or the freedom to engage in lawful protest.

How should this be applied?

The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities will in due course publish a list of certain organisations and groups which, in his opinion, meet the government’s definition of extremism. The government will use the full 2024 definition of extremism when making this assessment.

In the first instance, for all engagement, officials should consult this published list, checking for organisations and groups that they propose to engage with. If the organisation or group appears on the list, departments should take this into account when deciding whether or not to engage. Departments should also take into account the information published alongside each entry on the list that indicates the basis for the inclusion of the organisation or group on the list.

At the present time, no other checks against Standard One should be carried out. Either an individual, organisation or group is on the published list, or it is not. Officials who are unsure as to whether an individual, organisation or group is on the published list, or are otherwise unsure how to proceed, should contact DLUHC’s Community Engagement Review Team.

If an individual, organisation or group is not on the published list, it does not contravene this standard. Departments should not attempt to make their own assessment as to whether the individual, organisation or group meets the government’s extremism definition. Engagement decisions should not be based on any assumptions as to whether the individual, organisation or group would meet the definition. Where the government or a department has an existing policy of not engaging with a particular individual, organisation or group, this policy can remain in effect unless and until reviewed, but may require amendment once an assessment has been made  against the government’s extremism definition (which initially will be done solely by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities).

If departments are aware of evidence that they believe indicates that an individual, organisation or group may meet the definition of extremism, where they are able to do so, they should refer this to DLUHC’s Community Engagement Review Team, who will direct this information to the team responsible for overseeing the published list.

Individuals, organisations and groups appearing on the published list will be able to apply to DLUHC for removal from the published list. If departments become aware of evidence indicating that an individual, organisation or group should no longer be on the published list, where they are able to do so, they should refer this to DLUHC’s Community Engagement Review Team.

DLUHC will work with the Home Office, Commission for Countering Extremism and other key partners to upskill the rest of government in the extremism risks associated with providing engagement and funding.

---

Standard Two: Publicly promote views that condone serious criminal activity.

What is in scope?

This may include behaviours such as:

• publicly sharing materials to condone or otherwise support serious criminal activity (whether or not any serious criminal activity has actually taken place)
• intentionally providing an uncritical platform for individuals or representatives of organisations or groups that engage in serious criminal activity
• publicly facilitating serious criminal activity through provision of endorsement, funding or other forms of support

Serious criminal activity is:

• activity that would amount to a serious offence (see Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007)
• activity that would help someone else commit a serious offence
• a person conducting themselves in a way that would be likely to facilitate them or someone else in committing a serious offence (whether or not such an offence was committed)

A list of serious offences can be found in Schedule 1 to the Serious Crime Act 2007.

How should this be applied?

This standard is designed to capture behaviour that presents high reputational risk to government, or that may put other vulnerable stakeholders at risk, but which is not covered by Standard One.

Simply sharing an opinion on a matter, or, for example, advocating for a change in the law, does not fall under this standard.

Similarly, simply supporting the sharing of another individual, organisation or group’s perspective does not necessarily fall under this standard; there are several legitimate reasons for doing this, for example if done in a critical, humorous or journalistic context. Additional caution should be taken where the intention behind sharing another’s perspective is unclear.

Given that departments are likely to rely on open-source checks to gather information in relation to this Standard, they should carefully consider steps to ensure the reliability of the information in question, including contacting the organisation or individual in question to a verify information collected, particularly if this information was collected by open-source methods.

Teams are encouraged to:

• consult a subject-matter expert wherever possible, rather than making assumptions
• look to identify patterns of behaviour across multiple examples where single examples are not clear (for example, where an individual, organisation or group has repeated statements from a variety of groups over a period of time in a similar fashion)
• consider ambiguous statements to be lower risk than explicit ones, and to factor that into risk assessments when making a decision about whether or not to engage,

Some forms of promoting criminal activity may constitute a criminal offence; officials should consider these cases under Standard Three. If, when conducting due diligence checks, evidence is found to suggest that that an individual or organisation may have committed a criminal offence, and there is reason to believe that this is not known to law enforcement, the relevant authorities should be informed.

---

Standard Three: Have unspent convictions or are under investigation for serious criminal activity; have unspent convictions or are being investigated for financial crime; are excluded or suspended by a professional body or regulator because of a finding of, or an investigation into, serious misconduct; are the subject of UK sanctions measures; or are proscribed by the UK government.

What is in scope?

For the purposes of this standard, “serious criminal activity” should have the same meaning as under Standard Two.

In line with section 1H(3) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, “financial crime” can be any offence involving:

• fraud or dishonesty
• misconduct in, or misuse of information relating to, a financial market
• handling the proceeds of crime
• the financing of terrorism

The Financial Conduct Authority’s Financial Services Register outlines individual prohibition orders, and the warning list of unauthorised firms outlines details of unauthorised firms and individuals that the FCA are aware of, that aren’t allowed to operate in the UK.

See the list of UK regulators for professions, but there are numerous government agencies and arm’s length bodies (e.g. Ofcom, the Charity Commission) that also perform a regulatory function and would therefore fall within scope of this standard.

The UK Sanctions List details which people, entities and ships are designated or specified under regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The list includes those designated by the United Nations.

Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation as a terrorist organisation if they believe that it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do.

See the list of currently proscribed organisations in the UK.

How should this be applied?

Have unspent convictions or are under investigation for serious criminal activity

Ministers, or officials acting on their behalf, should apply their discretion as to whether it is appropriate to carry out checks on potential engagement partners against this standard, which will depend on the nature of the engagement.

Once they have decided whether it is appropriate to undertake checks against this standard, departments should then consider whether it is appropriate to undertake a Disclosure and Barring Service check to collect relevant information for consideration in relation to this standard.

In circumstances where a DBS check is not appropriate, departments should seek to ensure they have access to reliable sources of information. In line with Standard Two, departments should also consider taking steps to verify information collected in relation to this standard, particularly if this information was collected by open-source methods.

Once departments have collected and verified the relevant information for consideration against this standard, they should consider both the seriousness and relevance of any given past behaviour covered by this standard before making a decision on whether to undertake engagement or provide funding. Even if serious, past behaviour may not necessarily conflict with government’s core aims. Past behaviour may also give the stakeholder a valuable perspective on certain issues.

There is a risk that disqualifying an individual, group or organisation from engagement for an issue that is not serious, or is not clearly related to the engagement itself, would be excessive or disproportionate, affecting the government’s ability to engage with useful engagement partners and potentially also bringing the government into disrepute.

More generally, the passage of time since the conviction or the imposition of an ongoing exclusion for misconduct should be taken into account when the minister, or official acting on their behalf, decides whether to provide engagement, as after a certain period of time has elapsed, there is an interest in people no longer being confronted with their acts, with a view to their reintegration in society. Caution should be applied when considering previous criminal activity for these reasons.

Have unspent convictions or are being investigated for financial crime

Ministers, or officials acting on their behalf, should apply their discretion as to whether it is appropriate to carry out checks on potential engagement partners against this standard, which will depend on the nature of the engagement.

Once they have decided whether it is appropriate to undertake checks against this standard, departments should then consider whether it is appropriate to undertake a Disclosure and Barring Service check to collect relevant information for consideration in relation to this standard.

In circumstances where a DBS check is not appropriate, departments should seek to ensure they have access to reliable sources of information. Departments should also consider taking steps to verify information collected in relation to this standard, particularly if this information was collected by open-source methods.

If departments decide it is not appropriate to undertake checks based on the definition of financial crime, they may still deem it appropriate to undertake checks against the FCA’s Financial Services Register and warning list of unauthorised firms

When relevant to the proposed engagement, or if awarding grants or funding, officials should also use any established rules, guidelines and processes already in place in their department for checking financial probity; this includes existing tools and due diligence processes for which their department may hold a licence (for example Cabinet Office’s Spotlight due diligence tool). For awarding of grants specifically, see information on the Grants Functional Standard and on the Grants: Minimum Requirement 7 (PDF, 695 KB). Officials are encouraged to regularly review guidance as it is updated.

Are excluded or suspended by a professional body or regulator because of a finding of, or an investigation into, serious misconduct

Similarly, ministers, or officials acting on their behalf, should use their own judgement to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether it would be appropriate and proportionate to take account of a professional or regulatory exclusion or suspension when deciding whether to engage with an individual.

Even if based on serious matters, it may be that exclusion from one profession does not undermine an individual’s ability to speak with authority on an unrelated matter. There are likely to be professional bodies and regulators which are particularly relevant to the specific work of individual departments and this should be factored into considerations as to whether it is appropriate to take account of a professional or regulatory exclusion or suspension, and which professional bodies and regulators records should be checked to collect relevant information.

Officials should use clear and specific evidence in deciding whether this standard has been contravened. For example, either an individual has been struck off a professional register, or they have not. Officials should avoid making more subjective judgements on an individual’s professional conduct. An individual formally being subject to ongoing formal investigation is in scope; rumours or hearsay, or suggestions that an individual should be investigated, are not.

Are the subject of UK sanctions measures

The UK Sanctions List details which people, entities and ships are designated or specified under regulations made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The list includes those designated by the United Nations.

Are proscribed by the UK government

Officials should refer to the list of proscribed organisations.

Being a member of a proscribed organisation is a criminal offence. Officials should note that whether an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, or whether a group has invited support for a proscribed organisation, may not always be straightforward or obvious.

Nonetheless, if, when conducting due diligence, evidence is found to suggest that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed group, this evidence should be passed on to the relevant authorities. It is a matter for the police to investigate, and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute, potential criminal offences regarding proscription, such as being a member/supporter of a proscribed organisation.

There are certain, limited instances where government departments may need to engage with proscribed organisations. Section 12(4) of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a defence for ‘genuinely benign’ meetings with proscribed organisations, where an individual has no reasonable cause to believe that the meeting would support the organisation or further its activities. Departments seeking to engage a proscribed organisation should seek guidance from the Home Office proscription team.

As well as considering organisations proscribed by the UK government, officials may also wish to consider the reputational implications of engaging with an organisation designated under the equivalent counter-terrorism regimes by key international partners.

9. Further advice and support

For further advice and guidance, please contact DLUHC’s Community Engagement Review Team.