Minister is in the clear after sex toys storm

A MINISTER who called his Commons secretary ‘sugar t*ts’ and had her buy sex toys as presents was cleared of misconduct by a Whitehall sleaze inquiry yesterday.

International trade minister Mark Garnier was found not to have broken the ministerial code because the allegations date from when he was just an MP.

Theresa May last night said ‘a line should be drawn under the issue’ after Mr Garnier wrote a letter of apology to his former secretary, Caroline Edmondson.

The inquiry began after she told how he had given her money in 2010 to buy two vibrators at a Soho sex shop – one for his wife and one for a woman in his constituency office.

Miss Edmondson, who now works for another MP, said that on another occasion in a bar, in front of witnesses, he told her: ‘You are going nowhere, sugar t*ts.’

Mr Garnier admitted the claims but said the ‘sugar t*ts’ comment was part of an ‘amusing conversation’, while the sex toys were bought after a Christmas lunch.

‘The vibrator shop was high jinks,’ he said. ‘I hung around outside and she went into this shop. That was it.’

He conceded that, in the current climate, his actions could look like ‘dinosaur behaviour’, but added: ‘It absolutely does not constitute harassment.’

A No 10 spokesman said the Cabinet Office found no evidence that Mr Garnier acted improperly after being appointed a minister. In addition, there was a ‘significant difference of interpretation’ between Mr Garnier and Miss Edmondson.

Last night Miss Edmondson said that she agreed it was time to ‘draw a line under it’.

Last night a Downing Street spokesman said: ‘The Cabinet Office concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Garnier’s conduct as a minister since 2016 had breached the expected standards of behaviour.

‘The Prime Minister’s view is therefore that Mr Garnier did not break the ministerial code while holding Government office.

‘The Cabinet Office also took evidence in relation to an incident that happened before Mr Garnier was a minister, between Mr Garnier and a member of his parliamentary and constituency staff.

‘The Cabinet Office concluded that there was no dispute about the facts of the incident, but there was a significant difference of interpretation between the parties, and that the member of staff in Mr Garnier’s office was distressed by what had occurred.

The spokesman added: ‘It was not his intention to cause distress, and Mr Garnier has apologised unreservedly to the individual.

‘On that basis the Prime Minister considers that a line should be drawn under the issue.’