The Cabinet Secretary has defended the Prime Minister’s role as the ultimate arbitrator of the ministerial code, after critics argued the current system means Boris Johnson is able to “mark his own homework”.
It comes as the Prime Minister’s ministerial standards adviser, Lord Geidt, is in the process of undertaking an investigation into how renovations on 11 Downing Street, where Mr Johnson lives with his fiancee Carrie Symonds, were funded.
The cost of the work was reportedly £200,000.
Opposition MPs have raised concerns that Lord Geidt, who was appointed last month to the vacant post, is not sufficiently independent because Mr Johnson remains the “ultimate arbiter” of the ministerial code, so he would be “judge and jury” in concluding whether he had committed any wrongdoing through the financing of the upgrades.
Cabinet secretary Simon Case, who is also reviewing the Downing Street refurbishment, along with the Electoral Commission, defended the situation in front of peers.
The head of the Civil Service argued that Britain’s unwritten constitution set out that “hiring and firing” powers in Government must rest with the Prime Minister, even in situations where that might appear “odd”.
Mr Case, when put to him that the current set-up allowed the Conservative Party leader to “mark his own homework”, told the Lords Constitution Committee: “The role of ministers derives from a fundamental constitutional principle which is that ministers are appointed by the sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister by the use of prerogative powers.
“So while we have now the distinguished Lord Geidt in the role of independent adviser – other people can get involved in the role of adviser, as the title makes clear – but under our constitutional settlement, the decision, the hiring and firing of ministers is an act by the sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister.
“That is just one of our basic constitutional principles and sometimes people find that odd but that’s just the basics of our constitutional settlement.”
The Prime Minister appointed Lord Geidt last month after Sir Alex Allan resigned from the advisory position in November over Mr Johnson’s decision to stand by Home Secretary Priti Patel, despite an investigation finding her conduct towards staff “amounted to behaviour that can be described as bullying”.
Labour has called for Ms Patel to once again be investigated for an alleged “flagrant breach” of the ministerial code by lobbying a fellow minister in an attempt to secure a healthcare firm access to a personal protective equipment (PPE) deal said to be worth £20 million.
The party has urged Mr Case to investigate the Home Secretary over efforts to sway the award of a contract after being approached by a Tory activist.
Mr Case told peers on Monday that there were “sanctions” available should ministers be found to have breached the code.
“The sanctions are set out in the ministerial code or the Civil Service code,” he told the committee.
“They are set out, there are sanctions. For example, in the ministerial code, it was very clear the ultimate arbiter of behaviour under the ministerial code is the Prime Minister. That is how things operate.
“Of course first and foremost it is for ministers themselves to uphold and explain their behaviour under the code, but those sanctions are there.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel