Wednesday, June 01, 2022
Time for straight answers to straight questions
Sometimes those in positions of authority manage to get straight to the heart of a matter with a simple question. Yesterday though, was not such an occasion, when Christopher Geidt, the Prime Minister's independent adviser on ministers’ interests, used his annual report, to say that there is a “legitimate question” about whether receiving a fixed-penalty notice for breaking coronavirus rules constituted a breach of the ministerial code.
As the Guardian reports, Geidt, who is meant to advise Johnson over whether ministers have breached the code, dodged the question of whether the prime minister himself had done so – apparently for fear of having to resign if Johnson ignored him:
“I have attempted to avoid the independent adviser offering advice to a prime minister about a prime minister’s obligations under his own ministerial code,” he said. “If a prime minister’s judgement is that there is nothing to investigate or no case to answer, he would be bound to reject any such advice, thus forcing the resignation of the independent adviser. Such a circular process could only risk placing the ministerial code in a place of ridicule.”
Geidt said instead he had repeatedly urged Johnson’s advisers that the prime minister “should be ready to offer public comment on his obligations under the ministerial code, even if he has judged himself not to be in breach”. He complained that that advice “has not been heeded”.
Johnson’s previous ethics adviser, Sir Alex Allan, did resign, after the prime minister overruled his judgment that the home secretary, Priti Patel, had bullied staff, albeit inadvertently.
The Prime Minister, of course, is admitting nothing. He has written to Christopher Geidt to say that, “taking account of all the circumstances, I did not breach the code”. He also declined to give Geidt the power to launch his own investigations.
It is little wonder that people think the ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on.
As the Guardian reports, Geidt, who is meant to advise Johnson over whether ministers have breached the code, dodged the question of whether the prime minister himself had done so – apparently for fear of having to resign if Johnson ignored him:
“I have attempted to avoid the independent adviser offering advice to a prime minister about a prime minister’s obligations under his own ministerial code,” he said. “If a prime minister’s judgement is that there is nothing to investigate or no case to answer, he would be bound to reject any such advice, thus forcing the resignation of the independent adviser. Such a circular process could only risk placing the ministerial code in a place of ridicule.”
Geidt said instead he had repeatedly urged Johnson’s advisers that the prime minister “should be ready to offer public comment on his obligations under the ministerial code, even if he has judged himself not to be in breach”. He complained that that advice “has not been heeded”.
Johnson’s previous ethics adviser, Sir Alex Allan, did resign, after the prime minister overruled his judgment that the home secretary, Priti Patel, had bullied staff, albeit inadvertently.
The Prime Minister, of course, is admitting nothing. He has written to Christopher Geidt to say that, “taking account of all the circumstances, I did not breach the code”. He also declined to give Geidt the power to launch his own investigations.
It is little wonder that people think the ministerial code is not worth the paper it is written on.
