How a ministerial code of conduct was systematically dishonoured
BRUCE ANDERSON
Early in his Premiership, Tony Blair published a new ministerial code, with a preamble. 'In issuing this code, I should like to affirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their government. We are all here to serve and we must all serve honestly and in the interests of those who gave us our position of trust.'
Ringing words, and sincere ones, at least at the moment of delivery. I am convinced that in those early days, the PM felt utterly confident in issuing such a commitment in the most emphatic terms, and that he was determined to eradicate not only sleaze, but the very scintilla of a possibility of a taint of sleaze.
He has failed. By tolerating and indeed encouraging cynicism, corruption, lying to Parliament, and attempts to coerce civil servants into lying on behalf of lying ministers, he has dishonoured every syllable in that pledge. Nor is this just a collapse of personal morality. Mr Blair's contempt for ethics in government has also undermined the workings of government.
For there is a crucial difference between New Labour sleaze and old Tory sleaze. The Tory ministers' offences were barely even peripheral to their conduct in office. It is worth recalling the first step in the destruction of Neil Hamilton. When Mr Hamilton was appointed a junior minister in the DTI, he thanked Mohamed Fayed for his congratulations and assured him of his continuing friendship, but pointed out that as they were good friends, he could not intervene in any matter concerning Mr Fayed's fraught relations with the DTI's inspectors. This infuriated Mr Fayed, who saw it as a scurvy return for his hospitality. It also demonstrates that Neil Hamilton had a better grasp of ministerial ethics than Tony Blair does.
From the ministerial code, section 1.1.iii: 'It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and helpful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister.' Yet Robin Cook and Stephen Byers are still in their posts. Mr Cook lied to Parliament; Mr Byers remained mute while Geoffrey Robinson did so. Mr Byers has threatened libel writs. He has also tried to intimidate bookshops into declining to stock Tom Bower's book on Mr Robinson. A very senior figure in W.H. Smith described that threat as 'pathetic', but it has a formidable provenance. Robert Maxwell employed similar tactics against Tom Bower's biography of him. These New Labourites: when they seek ethical inspiration, they go to the finest masters.
Apart from such Maxwelliana, Mr Byers has employed a further defence. He would have us believe that he had nothing to do with the Robinson report. leaving the whole matter to his officials. Let us consider what this would have meant in practice. When the report was delivered to Mr Byers on 9 December 1999, we must assume that it was accompanied by his Permanent Secretary, Sir Michael Scholar. Sir Michael would then have spoken along the following lines. 'Ahem, Minister: this report. Could be embarrassing, I'm afraid. Best if you have nothing to do with it; indeed, I would suggest that you give me back your copy, unopened. When the PM issued his ministerial code, didn't he say that he expected his ministers to behave at all times like the three wise New Labour monkeys: "see no evil, hear no evil, read no evil"? Could I also suggest that you slip out a Parliamentary answer on 21 December; with a bit of luck, everyone will be too busy with Christmas shopping to notice. Finally, Minister, an error seems to have crept into a letter you sent to David Heathcoat-Amoty. You wrote that you were going to be as "open" as possible; you obviously meant "closed".'
Is it possible to imagine Michael Scholar holding such a conversation? As I gaze out of The Spectator's windows, there is not one single winged pig in sight. It is to be hoped that a Parliamentary committee will give Mr Byers, and Sir Michael, the chance to clarify events, sooner rather than later (one reason why Mr Blair wants an election sooner rather than later).
From the ministerial code, section 1.1.ix: '[Ministers] must respect the political impartiality of the civil service, and not ask a civil servant to act in any way which could conflict with the civil service code.' Gordon Brown did not merely ask Sir Terry Burns to act in such a manner. He typed out a press release containing false information, and then put pressure on Terry Burns to issue it in his name. One can understand why the Chancellor acted in this way. Geoffrey Robinson had done far more to enhance his standard of living than Mohamed Fayed had ever done for Neil Hamilton. By then, moreover, the Chancellor was already assigning truth a lower priority. 'I lied. I lied,' he had told his staff after giving a mendacious interview on the subject of Bernie Ecclestone's Ll million donation to the Labour party: 'If this gets out, I'll be destroyed.' But he survived, to write an addendum to Mr Blair's ministerial code. 'If the Chancellor can lie to protect Labour's relationship with its rich donors, the Permanent Secretary can jolly well lie too, to protect the Chancellor's relationship with his rich donor.'
From a bad eminence to a squalid nuisance. If Keith Vaz had any self-respect, he would have resigned. If Tony Blair had any residual moral contact with the Tony Blair who drafted the 1997 code of conduct, he would have required that resignation. Instead, cynicism prevails. Mr Vaz is taken to the Stockholm summit, but then hidden away. This is the Minister for Europe, not allowed to appear in public at a European summit. What a contemptible way to run a government.
He is then smuggled back from Stockholm, to sit on the front bench while Mr Blair makes his statement, but placed at a sufficient distance from the PM so that there is no risk of his appearing in the same camera shot. This is a man who is fit to be Minister for Europe, but not fit to be photographed with his Prime Minister. What is a stronger word than contemptible?
This charade is taking place to appease Asian voters. Over the next few weeks, they will be assured that all Mr Vaz's Tory critics are racist, so that all Asians who deplore racism must vote Labour. It might seem foolish to question Tony Blair's judgment on public opinion, but in this case one wonders whether he is right. He is not only assuming that all Asian voters are as corrupt as the worst new Labour minister. He is also assuming that they are thick. Indeed, it is hard to imagine what more he could do to insult them, short of recalling Peter Sellers from the dead to do party political broadcasts for the Asian electorate.
Four years ago, Mr Blair wanted to restore the bond of trust, at almost the same time that Gordon Brown was setting out his convergence criteria for membership of the euro. They are still in doubt, but there is one respect in which Tony Blair has achieved convergence. While prating about bonds of trust, he has converged his government with Franco-Italian levels of corruption.
Previous page
