Sometimes reality defies satire. We have reached the point of peak incredulity with the home secretary where satire struggles. The only way to respond to Suella Braverman’s recently alleged conduct is with a straight bat. It seems there is an accountability-free set of rules available to her alone, an accountability-light version for government minsters to follow, and then a more rigorous set of rules everyone else has to abide by.
In Braverman’s moral universe, levelling up of the much-vaunted British trait of playing by the rules doesn’t get a look in. It’s more of a levelling down, with the lowest expectation of adherence falling on her. There are two recent allegations of Braverman having sought to exempt herself from following the usual rules. The first applies to the handling of a speeding ticket; the second relates to her responsibilities as an MP.
Insights into Braverman world
Braverman is alleged to have asked a member of her staff to look into the possibility of her taking a private, one-to-one speed awareness course in lieu of paying a fine and accepting penalty points on her licence. The central issue here is that ministers calling on civil servants to carry out personal tasks on their behalf is an unacceptable use of public money and creates a potential conflict of interest for the civil servant.
Philip Rycroft, former permanent secretary at the Department for Exiting the EU, told BBC’s Westminster Hour last night:
“This, on the face of it, I think, is a breach of the ministerial code. Obviously, there’s still investigations to be done and so on but the code is very clear. Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises or appears to arise between their public duties and their private interests.
“Even asking a question of a civil servant as to how she might go on one of these courses puts them in an impossible position. And for somebody, you know, who wakes up in the morning and sees a future prime minister, this is a real lapse of judgment.”
Homemade rules for the home secretary?
Whether or not Braverman ultimately made a choice between the options available to all of us – of paying a fine and accepting the penalty points or paying to attend a group speed awareness course – is immaterial and does not itself absolve her from the possibility of having breached the ministerial code. It is illuminating though that the home secretary could imagine a special arrangement might be available for her that is unavailable to anyone else.
In April, the Daily Mail reported a Tory MP as claiming that Braverman, in her earliest days as an MP, asked if she could charge speeding offences as an expense. This would, of course, result in the general public paying for personal penalties that accrued while committing a speeding offence. It betrays the judgment of the current home secretary that she should ever have asked this question.
It also came to light recently that in spite of a three-line whip to attend the vote on her very own illegal migrants bill (also known as the ‘small boats bill’), Braverman repeatedly asked to be excused from attending the vote. She was intending instead to go to a police station at which it was believed there was a photo opportunity she wanted to take advantage of.
While Braverman remains in post Sunak’s weakness is exposed
Braverman is a stickler for the rules when it comes to others, especially when they are people acting from conscience, such as protesters seeking to combat government policy failings, or refugees fleeing death or persecution in their home countries. In fact, the laws in her recent bills have been constructed to make illegal precisely those actions that a functioning democracy and international law should safeguard.
Braverman has already been dismissed once as a minster under Liz Truss for breaking the ministerial code, by communicating with an MP using her personal email. On that occasion she risked a breach in confidentiality and security. But she was promptly reinstated by Rishi Sunak on his election as prime minister. But as Yvette Cooper said today in the Commons, “If the home secretary can’t get a grip on her own rule breaking behavior, how can she get a grip on anything else?”
Even if Braverman were found to have broken the ministerial code on this second instance she might not be obliged to resign. As Braverman will be aware, a ‘get out of jail card’ exists courtesy of Boris Johnson’s legacy as prime minster. Guidance from No 10 issued last year says that if a minister has broken the code, in some circumstances a public apology would be the appropriate sanction. She is predictably saying today “I’m confident that nothing untoward has happened” in relation to the handling of the speeding offence. She evades the main point cited above.
A culture of miscreance
It’s not surprising that she feels she can game the system with impunity when Conservative prime ministers have facilitated a culture where a generous tolerance will be extended towards miscreant ministers.
If Sunak ultimately elects to excuse her, it will again betray his own lack of judgment and principle. He repeatedly trots out his vow, made upon election by his party as prime minister, to bring ‘integrity and accountability’ to government in the face of continuing evidence to the contrary. Should Braverman retain her post as home secretary the general public should not forgive or forget this recurring flabbiness of collective Tory principle.
