[ad_1]
Boris Johnson’s adviser on ethical standards has questioned whether the prime minister should be solely responsible for the ministerial code just days after a protest over the decision not to fire Priti Patel for intimidating staff.
Jonathan Evans, chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said the prime minister, who has the sole discretion to initiate investigations and decide to punish an errant minister, runs the risk of appearing to “mark his own task.”
It comes after Johnson was charged with double standards after telling ministers there was “no room for harassment” in the wake of a damning report on the home secretary’s behavior.
Johnson refused to fire Patel on Friday, despite an investigation by her adviser, Sir Alex Allan, which concluded that she had violated ministerial code.
The prime minister has the exclusive power both to initiate investigations into wrongdoing by ministers and to decide what action to take, if any.
Johnson’s decision not to fire Patel set a new precedent because previous ministers found to have violated the code were fired or resigned.
Lord Evans, the former head of MI5, told the parliamentary standards committee that it should take tests on whether to hand over both powers to an independent body similar to those that have been put forward in parliament.
“The initiation of an investigation is the sole responsibility of the prime minister. The decision on what action to take in this regard also rests entirely with the prime minister.
“In the same way that adjudicating those same matters in the Commons or the Lords seems as if you are marking your own task, the same concerns could be expressed about the way the ministerial code works,” he said.
“There is a problem here … the ministerial code does not have the same independent process that supports the code of the Commons. [of conduct] and I think it is an issue that has been overcome.
“More and more, we’ve seen it in the Commons, we’ve seen it in the Lords and we’ve seen it elsewhere, a separate element has been introduced. So there is a kind of mismatch between the expectations of what you would deliver from the Commons and what you get from the ministerial code.
“So I think you have to ask if there should be more independence, if the research element should be activated independently, potentially, and then there is the separate but parallel question of what the response to the actual research should be.”
Lord Evans said the public would be confused by the fact that allegations of harassment by MPs are investigated by an independent panel, but accusations of harassment by ministers are not.
“If bullying is treated in a particular way for parliamentarians in their parliamentary role, why would you want to handle it differently in their ministerial role?”
He also suggested that there should be more options to punish ministers who break the code, rather than simply firing them or not.
“At the moment it’s a binary thing, or you get practically nothing, or you have to quit,” he said.
On Friday, Johnson refused to fire Patel after Allan’s investigation found he had violated the ministerial code following allegations of intimidation in three government departments.
Allan, the prime minister’s adviser on ministerial rules, resigned after Johnson contradicted his report by vigorously defending the home secretary and keeping her in her role.
One of the justifications Johnson used to defend Patel was the element in Allan’s report that said she was not aware of the impact of her behavior because no Home Office official had complained about her.
Sources have said, however, that Allan tried to interview former top Interior Ministry official Sir Philip Rutnam, who resigned after confronting Patel, but was blocked by government officials.
Offering what he described as a “full and unreserved apology,” Patel took advantage of Allan’s finding that he had received no comment on the impact of his behavior.
Rutnam, who is suing Patel for wrongful termination under whistle-blowing laws, issued a statement Friday saying he was advised not to yell at or insult staff one month after his appointment in 2019, and that he he had said to treat staff with respect “on other occasions.”
