Theresa May the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has called for a tightening of the Ministerial Code – following what appears to be  a transgression of that code by Priti Patel, the Secretary of State for International Development; who conducted meetings with Israeli officials (including Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister) whilst on holiday.  Because the meetings were of an official nature, and they included both Israeli officials and the honorary President of the group Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI), they should have been formally declared in advance and the contents of the meetings should be known.  The participation of a Minister in undeclared meetings with foreign officials not only breaches protocol but also the Ministerial Code.  The Ministerial Code comprises several specific rules to be followed as well as an Annex entitled the “Seven Principles of Public Life”  to which Ministers are required to adhere.  These principles are: Selflessness, Integrity, Objectivity, Accountability, Openness, Honesty and Leadership.

Sadly, the aforementioned meetings were conducted without official sanction and in the absence of UK diplomats, so the specific content of the meetings is unknown.  This perhaps may be considered contentious, considering that following her return from holiday, Ms Patel apparently suggested that part of the UK aid budget be diverted to the Israeli army.  The MP for Witham however aggravated the situation when she lied about the number of meetings held and intimated that the Foreign Office had been notified in advance during an interview with a UK Newspaper.  Interestingly enough, the Ministerial Code indicates clearly that “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament…” but makes no mention of the accuracy of information that is given to anyone other than parliament…!

It would seem then, that on top of the previously discussed (ineffectual) Code of Conduct for MPs that there is a Ministerial Code, which provides additional rules that should be followed by Ministers.  So what then happens if those rules are not followed?  According to the House of Commons Briefing Paper on the subject “If there is an allegation about a breach of the Code and the Prime Minister, having consulted the Cabinet Secretary, feels that it warrants further investigation, he will refer the matter to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests…”  It goes on to say that “The Independent Adviser only undertakes investigations if instructed to do so by the Prime Minister…”.

The power to investigate any breaches therefore fall entirely to the Prime Minister, there is no independent body who can intervene in these matters.  There is a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, however the remit of this role has no responsibility over the Ministerial Code of Conduct, and in addition to this there is also a Director of the Propriety and Ethics Team in the Cabinet Office – although that role is only advisory.  All of which means that the only enforcement behind the Ministerial Code is the PM.  So if the PM is responsible for enforcing the Code, who is the body or person responsible for producing the Code?

The Ministerial Code was first given formal shape in the form of Questions of Procedure for Ministers (first published in 1992) and was then transformed into a Set of Rules in 1997 and eventually published as the Ministerial Code in 2010.  The latest version of which was released on December 21st 2016 by…  Theresa May!

The responsibility for the content of the Ministerial Code falls entirely to the Prime Minister – as does the referral for investigation, as does the subsequent sanctioning of anyone in breach on the code.  Therefore, as both creator and enforcer of a Ministerial Code, Theresa May can do entirely as she likes.  The present Code contains no criteria for referral for investigation and no explicit sanctions for breaches: without which all applications of the Code can only be subjective.

The absence of any objective standards and measures means that the Code does not provide a level playing field; as is evident in this case where calls for the investigation of Ms Patel from opposition MPs are ignored and without explanation – something which in itself is a breach of the Ministerial Code as the General Principle 1.2d states that “Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest…”  Since therefore the Ministerial Code also applies to the Prime Minister – she is after all a Minister too – it would seem logical that the Prime Minister should refer herself to the Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests – of course, it should also be noted that the Independent Adviser of Ministers’ Interests is also appointed directly by the PM…

Any standard that has neither explicit criteria for investigation, nor explicit sanctions for breaches is worthless – as the application of the standard becomes entirely subjective.  Furthermore – a standard cannot be considered to be fair where it is permitted that an ‘independent’ investigator be selected by the same person as the one referring a situation for investigation.  This is further compounded by the fact that the person referring the situation is also the person for ensuring compliance, which ultimately means that there is a vested interest in not referring anything.

This standard therefore is simply a façade to cover for decisions – a convenient procedure which can be held up as being independent when in reality, it is nothing more than a cover for whatever decision the Prime Minister wishes to make.  It can only be as good as the person who chooses to enforce it… or not as this case may be!

The rules for government must be independent of government control, and applied by an independent judicial branch.  Independence from self-interest is surely necessary to regain the trust of the people; this continued and continual hypocrisy makes a mockery of democracy.  We cannot allow our representatives to play fast and loose with our futures, and there should be severe penalties applied for anyone that tries.