This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/10/westminster-scrutiny-priti-patel-harassment-scandal-politicians-parliament
The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| A pirates’ code governs Westminster. The solution is independent scrutiny | A pirates’ code governs Westminster. The solution is independent scrutiny |
| (about 5 hours later) | |
| Fri 10 Nov 2017 11.37 GMT | |
| Last modified on Fri 10 Nov 2017 21.49 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| So Priti Patel has finally resigned, stating that reports about her bizarre holiday arrangements apparently served as a distraction from the work of government. Although the lack of a brutal sacking supposedly allowed her to keep her dignity, there certainly wasn’t anything very dignified about the former international development secretary’s taxpayer-funded recall from Kenya and OJ Simpson-style scramble through the streets of west London. | So Priti Patel has finally resigned, stating that reports about her bizarre holiday arrangements apparently served as a distraction from the work of government. Although the lack of a brutal sacking supposedly allowed her to keep her dignity, there certainly wasn’t anything very dignified about the former international development secretary’s taxpayer-funded recall from Kenya and OJ Simpson-style scramble through the streets of west London. |
| However you characterise her departure, one thing is clear: Patel was not sacked for breaching the ministerial code. Had that been the case, she would have gone on Monday, and we’d all have been a few thousand pounds better off. | However you characterise her departure, one thing is clear: Patel was not sacked for breaching the ministerial code. Had that been the case, she would have gone on Monday, and we’d all have been a few thousand pounds better off. |
| Make no mistake, her departure was a political decision. Patel went because the constant stream of new revelations meant that a reluctant prime minister had no choice but to act. Despite clear evidence that Patel had breached the ministerial code, the prime minister chose not to refer the secretary of state for investigation, a decision that sadly only serves to underline a decay in the standards to which politicians are now held. | Make no mistake, her departure was a political decision. Patel went because the constant stream of new revelations meant that a reluctant prime minister had no choice but to act. Despite clear evidence that Patel had breached the ministerial code, the prime minister chose not to refer the secretary of state for investigation, a decision that sadly only serves to underline a decay in the standards to which politicians are now held. |
| Instead, May asked Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary and Britain’s most senior civil servant, to look at whether the code itself needed clarifying. This decision is almost beyond parody. The implication is clear: as the code did not explicitly tell ministers not to negotiate with a foreign power in a personal capacity, how could poor Patel really have understood that she was committing a faux pas? I look forward to the exhaustive list of excluded behaviours that Sir Jeremy will now have to set out in order to avoid such understandable confusion in the future. | Instead, May asked Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary and Britain’s most senior civil servant, to look at whether the code itself needed clarifying. This decision is almost beyond parody. The implication is clear: as the code did not explicitly tell ministers not to negotiate with a foreign power in a personal capacity, how could poor Patel really have understood that she was committing a faux pas? I look forward to the exhaustive list of excluded behaviours that Sir Jeremy will now have to set out in order to avoid such understandable confusion in the future. |
| The ministerial code is there to enforce standards of propriety for government ministers. It is often likened to the civil service code, which entrenches the values of honesty and integrity, and which members of my union, the FDA, uphold every day. That Patel breached the ministerial code is hardly in doubt – but Theresa May did not even have to make that judgment herself. Instead she only needed to make a call on whether or not a potential breach should be investigated. The decision not to refer Patel means that the ministerial code is now akin to the Pirates’ Code in The Pirates of the Caribbean films: “more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules”. | The ministerial code is there to enforce standards of propriety for government ministers. It is often likened to the civil service code, which entrenches the values of honesty and integrity, and which members of my union, the FDA, uphold every day. That Patel breached the ministerial code is hardly in doubt – but Theresa May did not even have to make that judgment herself. Instead she only needed to make a call on whether or not a potential breach should be investigated. The decision not to refer Patel means that the ministerial code is now akin to the Pirates’ Code in The Pirates of the Caribbean films: “more what you’d call ‘guidelines’ than actual rules”. |
| This matters because the ministerial code is meant to sit above party politics, and is there to underpin the values we expect our politicians to uphold when they serve in government, regardless of their political ideology. It is perhaps an obvious flaw in the system that the prime minister of the day gets to decide whether or not to refer a minister for investigation. May’s failure to do so in this case undermines those values. If I were a cabinet minister, I would be furious that the collective integrity of government was being so obviously damaged in this way. | This matters because the ministerial code is meant to sit above party politics, and is there to underpin the values we expect our politicians to uphold when they serve in government, regardless of their political ideology. It is perhaps an obvious flaw in the system that the prime minister of the day gets to decide whether or not to refer a minister for investigation. May’s failure to do so in this case undermines those values. If I were a cabinet minister, I would be furious that the collective integrity of government was being so obviously damaged in this way. |
| Those who work in and around Westminster witness the intoxicating effect power has on politicians and those around them, well before they enter the now infamous Sports and Social Bar. Over centuries, and to some degree with good reason, parliament has been left to regulate itself. The expenses scandal was a prime example of an organisation that had become so insular and detached from acceptable norms that refurbishing a duck house came to be regarded as a reasonable public expense. | Those who work in and around Westminster witness the intoxicating effect power has on politicians and those around them, well before they enter the now infamous Sports and Social Bar. Over centuries, and to some degree with good reason, parliament has been left to regulate itself. The expenses scandal was a prime example of an organisation that had become so insular and detached from acceptable norms that refurbishing a duck house came to be regarded as a reasonable public expense. |
| That Patel breached the ministerial code is hardly in doubt – but May did not even have to make that judgment herself | That Patel breached the ministerial code is hardly in doubt – but May did not even have to make that judgment herself |
| It is those same conditions that have now led to the sexual harassment scandal that is gripping Westminster and the devolved governments. Politicians have for too long been the arbiters of their own conduct. Transgressions have been a matter for whips, left to determine whether to take action or pop the incident into their little black books for future use. | It is those same conditions that have now led to the sexual harassment scandal that is gripping Westminster and the devolved governments. Politicians have for too long been the arbiters of their own conduct. Transgressions have been a matter for whips, left to determine whether to take action or pop the incident into their little black books for future use. |
| This has helped to fuel a culture in which bullying and harassment, possibly even to a criminal level, are not only tolerated but encouraged. We are witnessing the impact, across many areas of life and industry, of allowing the powerful to believe that there will be little or no scrutiny of their behaviour. | This has helped to fuel a culture in which bullying and harassment, possibly even to a criminal level, are not only tolerated but encouraged. We are witnessing the impact, across many areas of life and industry, of allowing the powerful to believe that there will be little or no scrutiny of their behaviour. |
| Talk of hotlines and HR guidance helps to give a convenient narrative that something is being done – but the political parties promising action are the very same parties that have tolerated this behaviour for decades. | Talk of hotlines and HR guidance helps to give a convenient narrative that something is being done – but the political parties promising action are the very same parties that have tolerated this behaviour for decades. |
| What both of these scandals show is that politicians and political parties can no longer be relied on to mark their own homework when it comes to the standards we rightly expect them to uphold. Independent oversight, with processes free from political interference, is now urgently needed on all issues that relate to the conduct of our politicians. | What both of these scandals show is that politicians and political parties can no longer be relied on to mark their own homework when it comes to the standards we rightly expect them to uphold. Independent oversight, with processes free from political interference, is now urgently needed on all issues that relate to the conduct of our politicians. |
| This is not a call for revolution, and it would not require whole new bureaucracies. The civil service commission, for example, already hears complaints under the civil service code, and provides an obvious template for handling ministerial code complaints. The parliamentary commissioner for standards, meanwhile, already has the power to investigate breaches of the code of conduct for MPs, and is independent of parliament. At the moment, the threshold for raising complaints with the commissioner relates to the “integrity of the house” – wholly inappropriate when it comes to complaints of harassment or bullying. But with a broader remit, taking in the conduct of ministers as well as MPs, it could form the basis for a reformed system of oversight. | This is not a call for revolution, and it would not require whole new bureaucracies. The civil service commission, for example, already hears complaints under the civil service code, and provides an obvious template for handling ministerial code complaints. The parliamentary commissioner for standards, meanwhile, already has the power to investigate breaches of the code of conduct for MPs, and is independent of parliament. At the moment, the threshold for raising complaints with the commissioner relates to the “integrity of the house” – wholly inappropriate when it comes to complaints of harassment or bullying. But with a broader remit, taking in the conduct of ministers as well as MPs, it could form the basis for a reformed system of oversight. |
| Imposing sanctions following an investigation will clearly be the most difficult element of any new process, involving as it does democratically elected politicians. It is also vital that the body has transparently independent governance and the resources to enable it to investigate complaints effectively and efficiently. | Imposing sanctions following an investigation will clearly be the most difficult element of any new process, involving as it does democratically elected politicians. It is also vital that the body has transparently independent governance and the resources to enable it to investigate complaints effectively and efficiently. |
| A solution must be found, however, if any process is to earn the confidence of those it is there to serve. Sadly, this is now not only essential to protect those who have to work with politicians, whether that is in private office or parliament, but is also a necessary step on the long road to restoring integrity and trust in our political class. | A solution must be found, however, if any process is to earn the confidence of those it is there to serve. Sadly, this is now not only essential to protect those who have to work with politicians, whether that is in private office or parliament, but is also a necessary step on the long road to restoring integrity and trust in our political class. |
| • Dave Penman is general secretary of the FDA union (formerly the Association of First Division Civil Servants) | • Dave Penman is general secretary of the FDA union (formerly the Association of First Division Civil Servants) |
| House of Commons | |
| Opinion | |
| Sexual harassment | |
| Priti Patel | |
| comment | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |