ALLOWING the Health Secretary to keep his job after committing a “minor” breach of the ministerial code could give “carte blanche” for further rule-breaking at the top of Government, Labour has said.
A probe by Lord Geidt, the independent adviser on ministerial standards, found that Matt Hancock was guilty of a “technical” breach of the rules after failing to declare his sister’s company, which he holds shares in, had become an approved contractor for the NHS.
But the ministerial sleaze watchdog ruled the contravention of the code was “minor” and did not call for the Cabinet minister to resign – a recommendation the Prime Minister agreed with.
But deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner has claimed the decision sets a “concerning precedent”.
Traditionally, a breach of the code has led to the resignation of ministers, although Home Secretary Priti Patel kept her job earlier this year after being found to have engaged in bullying behaviour towards staff by Lord Geidt’s predecessor, Sir Alex Allan.
Sir Alex resigned after Boris Johnson chose to back Ms Patel following his investigation into her conduct.
Announcing she had written to Lord Geidt to query his findings, Rayner tweeted on Monday: “This sets a concerning precedent that the rules don’t apply equally, or indeed they don’t apply at all.
“I have asked Lord Geidt whether he agrees that this precedent of a Cabinet minister being found by an independent investigation to have broken the ministerial code and then not resigning sends a very clear message that the rules don’t apply to Cabinet ministers, with this case therefore damaging public trust in our politics, fundamentally weakening the ministerial code system and giving carte blanche to other ministers to break the ministerial code safe in the knowledge that they will not face sanctions.”
THREAD: The Health Secretary @MattHancock was found by the Independent Adviser to have broken the Ministerial Code by failing to declare a 20% stake in a company, owned and run by his sister, that received NHS contracts. But he has not resigned and is facing no sanctions. (1/10) pic.twitter.com/1wAa6bdaHj
— Angela Rayner (@AngelaRayner) May 31, 2021
Hancock declared in the MPs’ register of interests in March this year that he owns 20% of shares in Topwood Limited, a firm owned by his sister and other close family members, which specialises in secure storage, shredding and scanning of documents.
The company, as first reported by the Health Service Journal (HSJ), won a place on a framework to provide services to the English NHS in 2019, as well as contracts with the NHS in Wales, after Hancock was appointed to his Cabinet brief in July 2018.
Lord Geidt, a former private secretary to the Queen who was appointed to his Downing Street role by Johnson, found in a much-delayed report on ministerial interests that Topwood’s approved contractor status could be seen to “represent a conflict of interest” that should have been declared.
READ MORE: Matt Hancock guilty of ‘minor’ breach of ministerial code over sister's firm
In his 10-page report published on Friday, he said: “I assess this earlier failure to declare the interest was as a result of his lack of knowledge and in no way deliberate, and therefore, in technical terms, a minor breach of the ministerial code.”
But senior opposition figure Rayner said it was “simply not believable or reasonable” that Hancock “didn’t know about this conflict of interest”.
In a lengthy post on the social media website, she said Lord Geidt had allowed Hancock to use a “completely ridiculous excuse” to keep his position at the top of Government.
“The implication of Lord Geidt’s justification, if applied to members of the public, is that people who own 20% stakes in companies don’t know what these companies actually do and people don’t know what companies owned by their sisters do or what their sisters do for a living,” she said.
“This saga has completely undermined ethics and standards in our public life.
“It has sent a clear message that the rules don’t apply, damages public trust in our politics and gives ministers licence to break the rules knowing they won’t face sanctions.”
The shadow chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said she had asked Lord Geidt what sanction he thought appropriate to apply against Hancock and whether he had recommended any to the Prime Minister.
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