Once they reach Downing Street, prime ministers rarely stop to ponder, “Who will guard the guards?” The ultimate check on a British leader’s power comes either at the ballot box or in a party leadership challenge. But the constraints on their day-to-day conduct are far weaker.
Since 2006, Whitehall has sought to monitor the conduct of the government through the independent adviser on ministerial interests. The holders of this post have tended to be retired senior mandarins who take on the part-time duty to ensure the ministerial ethics code is observed.
Ministers can refer themselves to the adviser, or are referred by the prime minister, and if their conduct is found wanting, resignation is expected. Until the era of Boris Johnson that is. When his former standards adviser Sir Alex Allan resigned — he concluded that the home secretary Priti Patel had bullied officials, Johnson disagreed and he quit.
Lord Christopher Geidt, Allan’s successor, endured an even more turbulent stint trying to maintain ministerial standards. He was forced to investigate the prime minister personally over “wallpapergate” — a scandal about who funded the refurbishment of his Downing Street flat — and clashed with Johnson over the “partygate” controversy over breaches of Covid regulations in Downing Street. Geidt also resigned, after feeling he could no longer carry out the role. Since June, there has been no adviser and no effort to find one.
With a new prime minister due to take office in less than two weeks, replacing Geidt should be a priority. Not so. Liz Truss, who is almost certain to win the Tory leadership race, has refused to say whether she thinks the role should even exist. The foreign secretary claimed “numerous advisers and independent bodies” were one of the country’s problems. Instead, she stressed her personal integrity. “For me, it’s about understanding the difference between right and wrong,” Truss said.
There are some fair criticisms to be made of having a ministerial standards adviser. An unelected official should not wield the power to force a minister out, though he or she should be able to hold them accountable. There should also be punishments short of enforced resignation. One of Geidt’s problems was the absence of any mechanism to challenge the prime minister in the event of disagreement.
A solution may be to add a recourse mechanism through parliament. If the standards adviser is at odds with the prime minister, or uncertain of the right sanction, their findings should be put to the respective standards and privileges committee of the Commons or Lords. The committees sit above partisan politics and are formed with the agreement of chief whips.
Truss’s position reflects the so-called “good chap” theory of government, according to which we do not need codified structures to protect Britain’s unwritten constitution because the people of unimpeachable moral character will always do the right thing. One lesson from the Johnson era is that the theory is stone dead.
The prime minister’s fall began with the botched attempt to save disgraced former minister Owen Paterson in October. His standing fell further with partygate. His premiership was effectively ended by the mishandling of sexual harassment allegations regarding the former deputy chief whip Chris Pincher. Johnson’s demise had nothing to do with policy. It was about competence and morality.
Truss’s challenges go beyond government: one Tory MP is in prison on sexual assault charges and another resigned, prompting a by-election. Every profession has rules and arbiters and Westminster should be no different. Restoring standards is vital — to the fortunes of the Conservative party and the reputation of politics itself.
sebastian.payne@ft.com
Credit: Source link
