![]() ![]() Ministers must respect the principle of collective responsibility whereby they speak with one voice and take the consequences as one government. In summary the code provides that it is the personal responsibility of ministers to ensure their conduct does not breach the ministerial code on how to maintain the highest standards of probity. Was he right not to investigate her behaviour further? He decided that the facts did not warrant further investigation either by the cabinet office or his ethics adviser. It seems a storm in a teacup, but for the prime minister the issue was whether the facts warranted an investigation on whether she broke the ministerial code. Her choice of a conviction instead of going on a speed-awareness course seems counter-intuitive, as a conviction attracts more adverse publicity than doing a speed-awareness course, but that’s an eccentric judgement that proves nothing. What she should have done is consult a defence solicitor with expertise in road traffic law first before asking her civil servants how the solicitor’s advice married up with her public role. Her civil servants at the ministry refused and she asked her special adviser to look into the matter who was advised by the course organiser that a one-to-one course was not available in her case.įor her part Suella Braverman said that she canvassed with civil servants the options open to her on how to do the speed-awareness course as interior minister in light of security and privacy concerns that flowed from her new role, and that at no time did she instruct her officials to act contrary to the advice she was given that the one-to-one option was not available. On the contrary it seems her road traffic offending was not serious, and she was offered the choice to do a group speed-awareness course in lieu of prosecution, available to drivers whose offending was a minor lapse in concentration – there being no suggestion she was corruptly offered the course because she was interior minister.īut there is a suggestion that she acted improperly in asking her civil servants at the interior ministry to look into whether the course organiser would agree for her to do the course on a one-to-one basis to avoid the publicity of taking part as a member of a group – a pathetic attempt at a cover-up but a weak case to answer. It would be different if she were driving dangerously or with excess alcohol, which are resigning matters for judges and presumably attorneys general too. Like every good offender she admitted the crime and paid the fine, so why all the fuss in the British press last week? A conviction for driving above the 50 mph speed limit is no resigning offence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |