Letter: Making a basic judgement of ministerial morality
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Even if nobody knows what 'back to basics' means, ministers clearly intended it to be about public morality. But what about ministers' morality, as your leading article (12 January) aptly pointed out? Leaving aside sexual misdemeanours, there is a growing number of claims of breaches of public honesty and ministerial rules of conduct that must call into question their continued right to govern.
It isn't only the Scott inquiry that has prised open the lid on ministerial misconduct and dishonesty, although those revelations alone implicate a quarter of the Cabinet. Apart from the arms-to-Iraq scandal, the National Audit Office has recently chastised Douglas Hurd for wasting pounds 54m of overseas aid money on a pounds 234m hydro-electric project in Malaysia, which was almost certainly used to seal an illegal pounds 1,000m arms deal with Malaysia that Margaret Thatcher negotiated personally. This was in prima facie breach of the Overseas Aid Act 1966, which bans the use of aid to secure defence sales.
There are other areas where public money has been used to benefit the private affairs of ministers, not least in the cases of Norman Lamont (legal fees) and John Gummer (garden landscaping). And now Gyles Brandreth, the PPS to a Treasury minister, has had a company debt written off.
What is really disturbing is not so much the lengthening list of specific cases of ministerial wrongdoing. It is the culture that has become entrenched in Whitehall: that ministers are above the law, that they can break the law with impunity. Secrecy and lying and manipulation in the topmost reaches of government have become endemic. What is needed is a new constitutional procedure whereby ministers acting deliberately in defiance of law, or conspiring to pervert the course of justice, can be brought to book by an outraged nation.
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL MEACHER MP for Oldham West (Lab)
House of Commons
London, SW1
12 January
The writer is Opposition spokesman on citizens' rights.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments