Here’s my colleague Aubrey Allegretti’s full report on the vote.
That’s it from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics blog this evening. Thank you for following along.
You can stick with me by joining me over on the coronavirus blog now if you like, but otherwise have a good evening.
Updated
Meanwhile, Labour’s deputy leader, Angela Rayner, has been offering her view on the evening’s events on Twitter.
She says: “Conservative MPs just voted against our motion to ban MPs having second jobs as advisers and consultants.
“Two weeks after voting to protect their mate who was found guilty of corruption, tonight they’ve voted to protect their £1,000 dodgy second jobs.”
Conservative MPs just voted against our motion to ban MPs having second jobs as advisers and consultants.
— Angela Rayner (@AngelaRayner) November 17, 2021
Two weeks after voting to protect their mate who was found guilty of corruption, tonight they’ve voted to protect their £1,000 dodgy second jobs.
We also have a little more information on the Tory MPs who voted against the government to support the Labour motion.
The division list showed four Conservative MPs rebelled to support Labour’s standards motion calling for a ban on “any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
They were: Peter Bone (Wellingborough), Philip Hollobone (Kettering), Nigel Mills (Amber Valley), and Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich).
Updated
Labour’s leader Sir Keir Starmer has been speaking to Sky News about this evening’s votes in the House of Commons.
He said:
We put forward a plan of action to clean up politics and strengthen standards in politics. If you can believe it after two weeks of Tory sleaze and corruption the prime minister whipped his MPs against that plan of action and, frankly, he just doesn’t get it.
When asked if we will see reform on MPs’ second jobs or not, he added:
Well, we need to press on with this and one of the thing’s that’s clear is we are not going to back down from these proposals, we are not prepared to have them watered down. But it is unbelievable that after the last two weeks the prime minister has whipped his MPs yet again to vote down a plan of action on standards. That tells you all you need to know on how seriously the prime minister is actually taking this issue.
He also commented on the fact that Boris Johnson timed his own announcement to coincide with the Labour leader’s press conference on standards yesterday:
I obviously need to do more press conferences because if the prime minister cedes ground every time I do one there is grounds for doing more of them.
Updated
Government motion passes by 297 votes to 0
The result from that vote on that second motion has just come in and it’s a comfortable victory for the government - because the opposition abstained en masse.
The government’s motion was passed with 297 votes in favour and 0 against.
I will bring you reaction on that as it comes.
Labour motion on MPs' second jobs voted down in the Commons
The result of the vote on MPs’ second jobs has come through and, as expected, Labour’s proposal has been voted down.
There were 231 votes in favour, with 282 votes against, defeating the motion.
The figures suggest a number of Tory abstentions and possibly even a few, such as Nigel Mills, voting against the prime minister.
The Labour motion would have seen the standards committee design rules by the end of January, which would ban MPs from working as political consultants.
The motion would have also ensured MPs would get a vote on bringing in these rules, shortly after the committee published its recommendations.
Up next is the vote on the government’s alternative motion, which is of course expected to pass.
It would still see the committee providing recommendations by the same date - 31 January - but it is less clear what happens next.
We will bring you the result of that vote as it comes, as well as details of how MPs voted in the first vote and reaction from Westminster.
Updated
Some interesting news being reported in the past couple of minutes.
Ahead of tonight’s vote, the Conservative MP Nigel Mills has told The Sun’s deputy political editor Kate Ferguson he will vote for the Labour motion tonight.
She tweets that it sounds like he feels he can’t justify to his locals that he voted against it just “because Labour forced the timetable”.
Tory MP Nigel Mills says he will vote for the Labour motion tonight.
— Kate Ferguson (@kateferguson4) November 17, 2021
Sounds like he feels he can’t justify to his locals that he voted against “because Labour forced the timetable”
The power of the Tory whip much diminished after the past fortnight’s battering
Good evening, I’m Tom Ambrose and will be bringing you the latest from Westminster this evening as Boris Johnson meets with backbench group the 1922 Committee, as well as that key vote in just under an hour.
We start with some news following the end of that meeting, although MPs have reportedly been asked not to speak to journalists on their way out.
The prime minister himself kept things suitably brief when The Guardian’s chief political correspondent, Jessica Elgot, asked if he had got his party back on side. He replied: “Bah.”
Asked the PM as he left 1922 committee whether he had party all back on board, and he said “bah.”
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) November 17, 2021
Meanwhile, the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, has reported that there has been a mixed reaction to say the least from Johnson’s own backbenchers.
After PMQs, then Liaison Committe, PM then went to face his own MPs at the 1922 committee - one texts to say, he 'looked weak and sounded weak' , 'authority is evaporating'
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 17, 2021
Meanwhile, his speech to the committee has also reportedly been described as “muted”.
Other MPs leaving the meeting of Tories where the PM was speaking? 'He needs a lemsip', 'Excellent', 'Muted' - 'fair to say it's been a rough couple of weeks'
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) November 17, 2021
Updated
Standards committee chair says plan to limit time MPs can spend on 2nd jobs may be unworkable
MPs started debating the Labour motion on tightening the code of conduct for MPs (see 11.58am) at around the same time Boris Johnson started giving evidence to the liaison committee. Here are some of the highlights from the debate so far.
- Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, said the government amendment was trying to “gut” the Labour motion. (She has a point - see 11.58am.) “It feels to me the government’s actions are too little, too late,” she said.
- Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, said it was valuable for MPs to be allowed second jobs. He said:
The government believes that it is an historic strength of our system that MPs should have a wider focus than the Westminster bubble, that we should maintain connections to the world beyond so that we may draw on the insight and expertise that this experience offers, and that rather than a chamber replete with professional politicians with no previous career or future career other than to remain on the public payroll, we have a parliament that benefits from MPs with a broader range of talents and professional backgrounds.
But he also defended the plan to stop MPs working as political consultants.
I can confirm to the house that we believe this experience and expertise that we accrue as part of our work as MPs should not be for sale. We are elected to parliament on a promise to work for the greater good, not ourselves.
- Sir Edward Leigh (Con) says putting a limit on the amount of time MPs can spend on a second job (another government proposal) would give too much power to the parliamentary commissioner for standards. He said:
It should be common sense and it should be left to the judgment of the electorate. If it’s left to the commissioner for standards, however distinguished, that will give that official a degree of power never enjoyed by any official ever before over members of parliament.
- Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the standards committee, also said he was sceptical of the plan to limit the amount of time MPs spend on second jobs. This is a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. But Bryant said:
I think it’ll be very, very difficult for the commissioner to start investigating whether an MP was devoting enough of their time to their constituents.
Of course all our constituents want us to throw ourselves heart and soul into our work, and I think we all do - many of us work many, many more hours than a normal working week, 60, 70, 80 hours.
Bryant said he was “very hesitant about going down this route of timesheets”, noting he would urge his committee to “think very carefully about this”.
That is all from me for today.
My colleague Tom Ambrose is taking over now.
Updated
Torsten Bell, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, a thinktank focusing on poverty and inequality, says the government has today published new details of how its cap on the amount people have to pay for adult social care will work under the new system it is introducing. He says the small print shows it will be less generous than it would have been if the cap had operated in line with the original Dilnot proposals. Bell explains it in a Twitter thread starting here.
You'll remember back in September the PM announced big reforms to offer greater protection for our assets if we're unlucky enough to need significant social care:
— Torsten Bell (@TorstenBell) November 17, 2021
- £86k cap on overall costs
- more generous means test so people get some help if they have under £100k in assets
And here is one of his conclusions.
Just to be clear - the means test will still make a big difference to this group with fewer assets. But if the exam question is whose assets are being protected by this reform, the answer on the basis of this change is much more distinctly the asset rich than previously thought
— Torsten Bell (@TorstenBell) November 17, 2021
Updated
UK minister admits big fall in returns of boat arrivals since Brexit
The number of people who have been sent back to Europe after travelling to the UK across the Channel in small boats has plummeted since Brexit, Tom Pursglove, the immigration minister, has admitted to MPs. My colleague Rajeev Syal has the story here.
Johnson admits defending Owen Paterson was ‘total mistake’
Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s story on Boris Johnson at the liaison committee saying it was “a total mistake” to try to defend Owen Paterson from punishment.
Although the government has said it cannot find a minute of the call between Owen Paterson and Lord Bethell, the then health minister, about a Randox Covid contract, Randox itself has offered to help. Randox issued this statement
Randox will be pleased to co-operate fully in laying before the house all the material required.
Public disclosure will demonstrate the efficiency and value for money provided by Randox through contacts awarded in full compliance with government regulations at a time of national crisis.
Contrary to much of what has been written and broadcast, lobbying played no role in the awarding of these contracts.
The company has 40 years’ experience in testing and diagnostics. It is proud of its performance and delivery under the contracts awarded to it on merit by the Government. They resulted in the delivery of more than 21m Covid tests, 15m of them to the national testing programme from the start of the emergency in the spring of 2020.
Q: Will you back an amendment that I and other committee chairs are putting to the health bill saying independent estimates of the number of healthcare staff needed in future should be produced?
Johnson says he is interested in that, but the government already has its own targets for recruiting staff.
And that’s it. The hearing is over.
Johnson says it is 'worth considering' whether UK could pay £400m debt to Iran in cash
Jeremy Hunt (Con), chair of the home affairs committee, goes next.
Q: Can you confirm that the decision to repay the £400m debt to Iran, cited as a key factor in Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcfliffe, is entirely up to the UK?
Johnson says Hunt knows about this from his time as foreign secretary.
He says this is very complicated. In an ideal world the UK would just repay it. But it is more complicated than that.
Q: If we cannot pay the money through banks, because of international sanctions, why can’t we do what President Obama did, and just fly the money over in cash?
Johnson says that is certainly “worth considering”.
(It sounds as if he is saying this more as a formality than because he is genuinely tempted by the idea.)
But he says there are complexities involved. He says there are other cases involving dual nationals to consider.
He says it is terrible to witness this. He would like to be able to say Nazanin will be home by Christmas, but he can’t promise that.
Updated
Q: Previously you said you would be responsible for empty shelves. Do you still stand by that?
Yes, says Johnson. He says he meant he would be responsible for addressing the problem. It has been caused by the shortage of HGV drivers, which is a global problem.
Q: Has Brexit made it worse?
Johnson says it is a pan-European problem. He says the job needs to be made more attractive.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (SNP), chair of the international trade committee, says Brexit will mean a 4% hit to productivity. What will we get out of it.
Johnson says the trade deals will benefit the UK.
Q: Shouldn’t you stop sending Tory donors to the Lords?
Johnson says, unless you have public funding of parties, you need to continue with a system where public-spirited people give donations to parties.
Updated
Ellwood is having a go at Johnson now over cuts in military hardware procurement.
Johnson says it is “now or never” for the UK land forces.
The old days when they had to prepare for large tank battles in Europe are over.
He says it is important now to focus on matter such as cyberwarfare. That is where we need to be. We can’t go back to the 1940s.
Updated
Q: Do you agree with David Attenborough that climate change is the biggest security threat the planet has faced?
Johnson says he has given a speech saying much the same.
Johnson says it would be 'tragic, tragic mistake' for Russia to invade Ukraine
Q: Is there more we should to do protect Poland and Ukraine from Russia?
Johnson says the two cases are different. Poland has a security guarantee from Nato; Ukraine doesn’t. But it is important that all sides understand the cost of a miscalculation on the border.
It would be “a tragic, tragic mistake” for the Kremlin to think anything could be gained by military adventurism, he says.
Ellwood says Russia will only understand that if the UK is explicit now.
Updated
Tobias Ellwood (Con), chair of the defence committee, goes next.
Q: Should we do more to tackle online radicalisation?
Johnson says there is always more that can be done.
Q: You have had a letter from people like Martin Lewis about tackling online scams in the online harms bill.
Johnson says he has not seen that letter yet.
Q: The bill will not regulate online advertising.
Johnson says he will look at that. But the bill cannot deal with “every ill” caused by the internet.
Updated
Q: The headline rate of benefit is at its lowest rate for 30 years. But the economy has grown by more than half since then. That is not right, is it?
Johnson says he is not familiar with those figures.
But he says he wants to encourage people into work.
Updated
Stephen Timms (Lab), chair of the work and pensions committee, goes next.
Q: I welcome the help for working people on universal credit in the budget. But shouldn’t you have helped people on UC who are not working too?
Johnson says the government wants to increase the incentive to work.
He says the government has to look after people who cannot work too. But other interventions helped them, such as the extra money for councils, the fuel price cap, winter fuel payments and help with childcare.
Q: Should social security provide an adequate safety net for families?
Johnson says of course he thinks that. But the government would like to see at least one family member in work.
Q: But our committee has heard parents are having to skip meals after the £20 per week UC cut.
Johnson says that should not have to happen.
Q: But it does.
Updated
Q: How worried are you about inflation?
Johnson says you always need to watch inflation.
But he would rather have high demand for labour than mass unemployment, as we had in the 1980s. That is why there is a need to invest in other ingredients that drive productivity: skills, training and infrastructure.
Updated
Mel Stride (Con), chair of the Treasury commitee, goes next.
Q: In March you told this committee you were a low-tax Conservative. But the tax burden is set to rise to its highest level since just after the second world war.
Johnson says that is simply because of what had to be spent to rescue the economy during the pandemic.
Q: But at the budget the chancellor had to decide between spending more and cutting the deficit. He decided to spend more.
Johnson says the government also cut taxes for the low-paid.
(He is referring to the more generous universal credit taper rate, which is not a tax cut but a benefit increase - although it might feel like a tax cut.)
He says he believes the chancellor’s strategy - which he supports - is to deal with the debt, but also to invest.
Updated
Sarah Champion (Lab), chair of the international development committee, goes next.
Q: Afghanistan looks like hell on earth. You have promised more aid. How and when will that be delivered?
Johnson says the government is working on ensuring that will be delivered to the people who need it.
He says the government must make it clear to the Taliban they must treat women fairly and equally.
He also says it is important to engage with the Taliban. They may not speak for all Afghans. But they are some kind of authority. For the sake of the people in need, the UK must engage.
Q: How much of the climate change funding will be spent on loss and damage [help for poorer countries already affected by climate change]?
Johnson says he does not have that figure to hand.
Updated
Neil Parish (Con), chair of the environment committee.
Q: Can we do more to stop British banks funding deforestation?
Yes, says Johnson. He says that is what was agreed at Cop26. He says 40 institutions made a commitment.
He says he would like consumers to make choices about the food they buy based on where it is coming from.
Updated
Philip Dunne (Con), chair of the environmental audit committee, goes next.
Q: What changes do you need to make to the structure of government to deliver net zero?
Johnson says the structure of government is well suited to this. Alok Sharma, the Cop26 president, will focus on ensuring global targets are met. The action needed now is global, he says.
Q: Departments are being left to their own devices to deliver on net zero.
Johnson says he does not accept that.
Q: But we are behind on the fourth, fifth and six carbon budgets.
Johnson says it is being driven by him as PM.
The lesson of clean technology is that, provided the government is committed to it, it will come down.
Darren Jones (Lab), chair of the business committee, goes next.
Q: Are you going to split up the business department to give the Cop26 president his own climate change department?
Johnson says he has no such plans.
Updated
Sir Bob Neill (Con), chair of the justice committee, goes next.
Johnson says, to speed up the evidence-gathering process ahead of rape trials, the government wants to limit the material that can be taken from mobile phones, and to ensure that phones are returned to victims after 24 hours.
We’re insisting that mobile phones are handed back to victims within 24 hours. This is one of the reasons we have such victim attrition, which is one reason we have such low prosecution rates because victims don’t feel confident in the in the system.
Updated
Knight says at their last meeting Johnson said he would address the problems facing musicians wanting to tour on the continent. But since then there have been just four meetings.
Johnson says he thinks 20 EU member states now offer visa-free travel for musicians.
Knight says meetings can make a difference, and more needs to be done.
Johnson says touring has been hard for everyone because of Covid.
Johnson refuses to commit to online safety bill getting second reading before Christmas
Julian Knight (Con), chair of the culture committee, goes next.
Q: Should things that are illegal offline be illegal online?
Johnson asks for an example.
Knight says cyber-flashing. He offers to explain what it is.
Johnson says flashing should be illegal online and offline.
Knight says the online safety bill at present does not address this. Johnson says he will consider a proposal if Knight can draft one.
Q: Will the bill get a second reading before Christmas?
Johnson says it will depend when the joint committee on the bill reports.
Q: You will have at least five days. So will it happen?
Again, Johnson says it depends on when the committee reports.
(At PMQs recently Johnson said the second reading would definitely be before Christmas.)
Updated
Q: Shouldn’t we treat misogyny as a hate crime? A pilot where it is being treated like that has been successful.
Johnson repeats the point about wanting to see the current law being enforced more effectively.
He says all women should have the confidence to denounce and report crimes against them.
Q: Will the online safety bill deal with the harm caused by violent pornography?
Johnson says it is clear people are coarsened and degraded by this stuff. He includes violent extremists too. But he says it is hard do do this.
He says social media companies are not just pieces of infrastructure.
It’s time the online giants realised that they cannot simply think of themselves as neutral pieces of infrastructure; they are publishers, and they have responsibility for what appears on their systems.
He says the online harms bill will address this.
Q: Should consent classes be compulsory in schools?
Johnson says he thinks children are given much better guiddance on this now. But he will look at this.
Updated
Caroline Nokes, chair of the women and equalities committee, goes next.
Q: Do you agree there is a ladder of offending in terms of violence against women and girls?
Johnson says there is evidence to support that. In the case of Wayne Couzens, his behaviour should have been picked up.
Q: So should public sexual harassment be a specific crime?
Johnson says there are quite a lot of laws already in this area. He says the problem is current laws are not being enforced. He wants to see proper enforcement of the existing law, he says.
Q: But, if there is a ladder of offending, should we not intervene earlier?
Johnson says, rather than expand the range of what is criminal, we should prosecute what is already criminal more effectively.
Johnson says he was only not wearing mask as Hexham hospital for about 30 seconds
Cooper says there are a lot of areas where Johnson does not seem to accept the rules, like on wearing masks in hospitals.
Q: Do you accept that you should go further than others in upholding the rules?
Johnson accepts that.
But he says at Hexham hospital he was only not wearing a mask for about 30 seconds. He made a mistake. As soon as he realised, he put it back on.
Updated
Yvette Cooper (Lab), chair of the home affairs committe, goes next.
Q: Do you accept Owen Paterson broke the rules?
Yes, says Johnson.
He accepts that it “might have helped a bit” two weeks ago if he had said Paterson did break the rules.
Cooper says, for the standards regime to work, Johnson has to uphold the rules.
Johnson says at PMQs that day he said breaking the rules deserved punishment.
This is from my colleague Rowena Mason on what Boris Johnson said about the Kwasi Kwarteng apology.
Kwasi Kwarteng's apology for suggesting the standards commissioner had no future in the job came after a conversation between the PM and his independent adviser Lord Geidt > appears to have been resolved via a cosy chat rather than any formal sanction
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) November 17, 2021
Johnson repeats the point that it is “hard to think of circumstances” in which he would refuse a request from the ministerial adviser on ministers’ interest to launch an investigation.
Q: So why don’t you just give him that power?
Johnson says the current situation works.
Sir Bernard Jenkin, chair of the liaison committee, asks if Johnson will accept the recommendations of the standards committee on reforming the system.
Johnson says he hopes there can be cross-party consensus.
Updated
Q: You say the country is not corrupt. But what Paterson did was corrupt, and you have tarred the whole of the house with the same brush, and yourself.
Johnson said on the day of the vote he said at PMQs that paid lobbying was wrong. His intention was not to exonerate anyone. In retrospect, it was obviously a mistake to conflate the two issues. “Do I regret that decision? Yes, I certainly do.”
Johnson admits he was wrong in thinking Paterson had not had fair hearing from standards committee
Q: Shouldn’t the rules on disclosing interests be the same for ministers and MPs?
Johnson says this is the system he inherited, and it seems to work pretty well.
Q: Do you think Owen Paterson was guilty?
Johnson says it was a very sad case.
I think it was a very sad case but I think there’s no question that he had fallen foul of the rules on paid advocacy as far as I could see from the report. The question that people wanted to establish was whether or not, given the particularly tragic circumstances, he had a fair right to appeal.
Q: He had an appeal.
Johnson says:
In forming the impression that the former member for North Shropshire had not had a fair process I may well have been mistaken.
But many people thought that, Johnson says.
(In fact, the Daily Telegraph was prominent in pushing this argument. Johnson in private reportedly refers to the paper, which used to employ him, as his “real boss”.)
Updated
Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, is asking the questions now.
He suggests that Kwasi Kwarteng was acting on behalf of No 10 when he said the parliamentary commissioner for standards should resign. Johnson says that is not right.
Johnson says he thinks the rules governing ministers taking business jobs after they leave government should be strengthened, but he says he has not formed a hard and fast view on how yet.
Kwarteng was ordered by No 10 to apologise to parliamentary commissioner for standards, PM says
Q: How do you view the ministerial code?
Johnson says it is important. It has been strengthened over recent years. He has brought in an independent adviser to advise him on implementing it.
Q: Should the adviser be allowed to launch an investigation?
Johnson says there are difficult constitutional issues raised by that. But Lord Geidt, the adviser, can suggest something should be investigated. He says it is “highly unlikely” he would disagree.
He says he founds Geidt an exceptional source of advice.
He says the recent letter from Kwasi Kwartent apologising to the parliamentary commissioner for standards was something that was generated as a result of a conversation between himself and Geidt.
Updated
William Wragg (Con), chair of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, goes first.
Q: Can you understand the public mood about standards?
Boris Johnson says there is a feeling they should be getting on, and acting with the utmost propriety. And the public want to have confidence in the system.
He says “it was a mistake two weeks ago to conflate the very sad and difficult case of a colleague who had fallen foul of the standards process” with the case for reform.
He says he wanted to achieve cross-party progress on reforms.
Now he wants cross-party progress on some of the recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life report from 2018.
Updated
Johnson gives evidence to Commons liaison committee
Boris Johnson is giving evidence to the Commons liaison committee, the body made up of all Commons select committee chairs, at 3pm.
Here, from a committee news release, is a list of the topics coming up, and the MPs questioning MPs under each heading.
Propriety and ethics in government
Chris Bryant, William Wragg
Violence against women and girls
Yvette Cooper, Caroline Nokes, Julian Knight, Sir Bob Neill
Cop26 summit
Darren Jones, Sarah Champion, Neil Parish, Philip Dunne
Budget and the spending review
Jeremy Hunt, Mel Stride, Stephen Timms, Angus MacNeill, Tobias Ellwood
In the debate on Randox Covid contracts, after the Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael referred to the minute of the Paterson/Bethell call going missing (see 2.13pm) and said that people with “suspicious minds” would be wondering why, the health minister, Gillian Keegan, intervened. She said:
I just want to make it clear what I said. We have been unable to locate a formal note of the meeting. That’s what I’ve been told so far. That does not mean there isn’t one.
Carmichael said that was an important distinction. He added: “I wonder if the search for those minutes has extended as far as the shredding room.”
The Times’ Patrick Maguire has more on Conservative party opposition (see 11.32am) to the plans announced by the PM yesterday to limit the amount of outside work done by MPs.
Tory MPs already ripping Boris Johnson's proposed ban on second jobs to shreds on WhatsApp... pic.twitter.com/dtRGnT8cCt
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) November 17, 2021
Updated
This is from the i’s Paul Waugh on the Gillian Keegan disclosure. (See 2.13pm.)
This feels like the govt are gifting Labour the perfect combination of incompetence *and* sleaze. https://t.co/BXpLgRZBhQ
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) November 17, 2021
Labour says absence of minute of call between Paterson and Bethell over Randox amounts to 'corruption'
Gillian Keegan, the health minister, had a very tricky time opening for the government in the debate on Randox Covid contracts. One Labour MPs said she even felt sorry for Keegan because she was in such an impossible position. Doing her best to avoid specific questions about Owen Paterson, she sought to focus on general points about how the government was setting up a massive testing programme from scratch and about how it was acting in an unprecedented emergency. At first she dodged questions about the minute of the call between Paterson and Lord Bethell, who was then a health minister, about Randox. But eventually she admitted that no minute of the call had been found. She said:
The meeting he refers to was a courtesy call from the minister to Randox to discuss RNA extraction kits.
That was declared on the ministerial register of calls and meetings, and we have been unable to locate a formal note of that meeting, but all the other notes that are available with regard to this - and that meeting, by the way, was after any contracts were let with Randox.
Several opposition MPs made the point to her that, from their experience as ministers, they knew a call of that kind should have been minuted.
In response to Keegan’s comment, Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, said this was “corruption”.
A government Minister just confirmed in Parliament that there are no minutes to the meeting(s) that took place between Lord Bethell, Owen Paterson and Randox as part of Randox being awarded £600 million of contracts without any kind of tender or any process.
— Angela Rayner (@AngelaRayner) November 17, 2021
This is corruption.
UPDATE: This is from PA Media, on the reaction in the Commons after Gillian Keegan made her comment.
Raising a point of order, Labour former minister Dame Angela Eagle said the minister had made “astonishing” revelations to MPs about there being “meetings with no minutes that are official, involve government minister, and she is unable to locate a copy of what is clearly a meeting that happened”.
Another Labour MP shouted: “Staggering.”
Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle said he hoped the ministerial officials would look into this, adding: “I would expect that government meetings that take place with people around would always be minuted.
“If not, I think it opens up another question and I don’t want that question to be opened up - I’d sooner for it to be answered.”
Updated
Brendan O’Hara is speaking for the SNP now in the debate on Covid contracts. He said Covid was like a “Klondike gold rush” for Randox. He said the award of contracts may have been legitimate, but people would only know if all the relevant papers were disclosed.
A Conservative MP intervened to point out that the SNP government in Scotland had also used emergency procedures to authorises Covid contracts during the pandemic. O’Hara responded by pointing out that the Scottish government had not run the sort of VIP scheme operated by the UK government that allowed some bids to be fast-tracked.
Updated
Minister says government won't oppose Labour motion forcing government to disclose Randox Covid contract documents
Keegan has just told MPs that the government will not be opposing the Labour “humble address” motion that will oblige the government to publish minutes and correspondence between Owen Paterson and Lord Bethell, then a health minister, over Covid contracts. (See 11.58am)
Minister says government does not have minute of call between Paterson and Bethell about Randox
Gillian Keegan, a health minister, is responding in the Commons to Rayner, and she has just told MPs that her department has not been able to find a minute of telephone call between Lord Bethell, the then health minister, and Owen Paterson.
This prompted numerous objections from opposition MPs, who pointed out that this was not normal procedure in government.
Unusually, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, intervened. He said he would also expect a minute to exist.
Keegan said it was just a “courtesy call”. And she said that the call took place after the contract was awarded to Randox, not before.
Updated
Here are some extracts from Angela Rayner’s speech at the opening of the debate on Randox Covid contracts.
- Rayner said it was important to establish if Owen Paterson played a role in lobbying for Randox, the firm employing him, to get Covid contracts. She said:
We already know that Randox was awarded £600m of taxpayers’ money without a tender.
We already know that Randox were awarded a second £347m contract having failed to deliver on a previous £133m contract.
We already know this decision was made after a meeting by conference call involving the then member for North Shropshire and health minister Lord Bethell.
What we don’t know is what happened in those meetings. Who else was present, what was discussed, and what was decided.
We don’t know what was said in any correspondence before or after, including through private email accounts or phones. We don’t know why or how these contracts were awarded, what rules might have been broken, and what role the member for North Shropshire’s lobbying played in government decisions.
- She called for an investigation into the latest revelations about how 47 companies received Covid contracts after applying through a VIP line, often after a reference from a senior Tory.
We know that those companies that got into the VIP lane were 10 times more likely to win a contract than anyone else.
Many did not, as ministers’ have belatedly admitted, go through the so-called eight stage process of diligence.
We now know how they got into the VIP lane in the first place.
Not a single one of them had been referred by a politician of any political party other than the Conservative party.
Of the 47 successful companies revealed yesterday, the original source of referral was a Conservative politician or adviser in 19 cases.
- She mocked the account given by Lord Bethell when told he would have to disclose what was on his phone about Covid contacts. She said:
Lord Bethell was told his mobile phone would be searched for documents. Just weeks later, he said that he had replaced that phone.
First, he claimed his phone had been lost, then he said it was broken and then he said he had given away to a family member.
Finally, nearly a year on, he remembered that he had his phone all along. But, unfortunately, he was in the habit of deleting his entire WhatsApp history and suddenly the relevant messages may have been lost.
And, you know what, he said the problem, and I am not making this up, was exacerbated by having two phones. A business one as well as his official one.
Updated
To coincide with the opening of the debate, Labour has distribute a dossier to journalists headlined: Tory Sleaze - Contacts, Corruption and Cronyism.
The key points it make are that: Covid contracts worth £3.5bn were awarded to Tory-linked firms; 50 Conservative MPs have earned £1.7m in consultancy fees in total this year alone; and Boris Johnson is “being investigated over standards by every organisation he has been elected to”.
Rayner pointed out that, in PMQs earlier, Boris Johnson said he would be happy to publish the documents relating to the Randox contracts. But she said Labour would be pushing its motion (see 11.58am) to a vote anyway to be sure.
This is what Johnson said earlier:
I’m very happy to publish all the details of the Randox contracts, which have been investigated by the National Audit Office already.
In the Commons Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is opening the debate on the first opposition motion. (See 11.58am). She started by pointing out that the Conservative benches were almost empty. Barry Sheerman, the veteran Labour MP, told her that in his 42 years as an MP he had never seen such a determined effort by the government to boycott an opposition debate.
Updated
PMQs - snap verdict
Yesterday, as No 10 ambushed the Labour press conference with the surprise announcement about the PM backing plans to stop MPs working as political consultants, Tory strategists seemed to think they had pulled off a minor victory. They had momentarily regained the intiative, and at least averted the threat of a defeat today. But any hopes they have of being able to win on this issue will have been destroyed by that PMQs. It was possibly Keir Starmer’s best ever, and very bruising for Boris Johnson.
Starmer was already well up after his two questions on the integrated rail plan, which all but confirmed that Johnson is about to yet again break promises he has made, before he started on sleaze. Often at PMQs Starmer comes across as precise, but passionless. Today he went for Johnson full throttle, and with conviction. After Johnson refused again to apologise for his handling of the Paterson vote, Starmer said:
That’s not an apology. Everybody else has apologised for him, but he won’t apologise for himself. A coward not a leader.
Starmer said that, while he kicked wrongdoers out of his party, Johnson covered up for them. And he ended with another broadside.
Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money handed to their mates and donors, Tory MPs getting rich working as lobbyists – one not even bothering to turn up because he’s in the Caribbean advising tax havens – and the prime minister somehow expects us to believe he’s the man to clean up Westminster.
At least twice Starmer was clearly channelling one of Tony Blair’s most memorable PMQs performances as opposition leader (“I lead my party, he follows his”). It was derivative, but it didn’t matter, because his criticisms landed effectively,
Johnson went on the offensive – perhaps his only option – repeatedly trying to raise Starmer’s own outside earnings as an MP. But he overreached himself badly, provoking Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, to shut him up more aggressively than ever before (it is never wise to argue with the ref), and at one point appearing to accuse Starmer of corruption. (Starmer has plenty of faults, but no one credible thinks he was corrupt). At one point near the end Tory MPs were shouting for more. Sometime they do this when they think their leader is performing well, but today it sounded like a rescue effort. If so, it didn’t work.
Updated
PMQs is over, but Michael Fabricant (Con) makes a point of order. He says Keir Starmer called Boris Johnson a coward. He asks the Speaker to accept that is out of order.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle says it was so noisy today there was a lot he did not hear. But he says that is not a word that should be used.
Starmer rises to say he will withdraw the word. But Johnson is “no leader”, he adds.
Jake Berry (Con) asks about Northern Powerhouse Rail. He asks if the voters of the north were right to take the PM at his word?
Yes, says Johnson. He says Berry and his electorate should wait until tomorrow, when he and his constituents will learn something to his advantage.
Ian Paisley (DUP) asks when the government will trigger article 16.
Johnson says Paisley spoke about using it legitimately, and that is the key word. It would be fair to use it to protect the supply of medicines to Northern Ireland, he says.
Sarah Atherton (Con) asks if the PM will support efforts to ensure the armed forces support women in their ranks more effectively.
Johnson congratulates Atherton for her work on this. He says a parliamentary inquiry is looking at this.
Caroline Ansell (Con) asks the PM if he thinks migrants would risk a dangerous Channel crossing if they knew they would immediately be taken to an offshore processing centre.
Johnson says the nationality and borders bill is addressing this.
Rebecca Long-Bailey (Lab) says a constituent told her Remembrance Sunday hurt because her grandfather never got medals, or recognition, for the work he did on nuclear tests. Will the PM recognise nuclear testing veterans?
Johnson says he will organise a proper meeting with this group.
Updated
Johnson says government will legislate to give parents of premature babies extra time off
David Linden (SNP) asks if the PM will back a bill to give the parents of premature babies extra time off work.
Johnson says, one way or another, the government will legislate for this.
Henry Smith (Con) asks if the PM will back Crawley’s platinum jubilee city status bid.
Johnson says he will look at this carefully.
Johnson says the Scottish carbon capture and storage project remains on the reserve list for government backing.
Asked if he will apologise to GPs for failing to recruit the extra GPs promised, Johnson says they are doing a fantastic job, and there are more people working in the NHS than ever before. Labour voted against the health and social care levy that raises more money for the NHS, he says.
Sir Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks about ambulance waiting times. Waiting times are not statistics; they are about people. Why are ambulance stations closing?
Johnson says the ambulance services is doing an amazing job. He says the government is putting more money into the NHS, through its levy. The Lib Dems did not back that, he says.
Updated
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks which of the sleaze scandals would have been averted by the PM’s reform proposals.
Johnson says his proposals are based on the report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
Blackford says Johnson could not answer the question. Does the PM think that the fact that every former Tory treasurer in recent years has been given a peerage amounts to corruption? Or can he see that is corruption, as everyone else in the country can?
Johnson says these claims about the UK being corrupt are insulting to people who live in countries that are genuinely corrupt.
Starmer says when he was DPP he prosecuted MPs who broke the rules.
He says Johnson has been investigated by every organistion he has been elected to. He says Johnson has led his troops through the sewer. He says it is no wonder people think the joke is not funny any more.
Johnson has a go at Starmer over his own “mishconduct” (a reference to Stamer having worked for Mischon de Reya when he was an MP).
The Speaker intervenes, and asks the PM to withdraw. MPs are not meant to accuse each other of misconduct.
Johnson says he said mishconduct. Some Tory MPs cheer.
Hoyle says these exchanges have been demeaning for the conduct.
Updated
Starmer says when one of his MPs misbehaves, he kicks them out. When that happens to Johnson, Johnson covers up for them.
Will the PM publish the Randox papers, as requested in the Labour motion? (See 11.58am.)
Johnson says he is happy to publish all the documents relating to Randox.
Then he starts asking about Starmer’s own second jobs. Hoyle tells him to sit down, telling him that while he may be PM, Hoyle is in charge here.
Starmer describes PM as 'a coward, not a leader'
Starmer says that is not an apology. “A coward, not a leader.” For weeks Johnson has defended corruption, he says. He says Labour will not let the government water down reform of MPs’ standards. There are more opposition day debates to come.
He asks if the PM will ban “job swaps”, when former ministers take jobs with firms they used to regulate or oversee.
Johnson asks who was paying the sums Starmer received from a legal firm.
Sir Linday Hoyle, the Speaker, intervenes. He says the PM is meant to be answering questions, not Starmer. He says those are the rules, and MPs play by the rules.
Starmer says other ministers have apologised for the Paterson vote. But they were following the PM’s lead. So will he apologise for trying to give the green light to corruption?
Johnson says it was a mistake conflating the Paterson case with the case for reform of the standards rules.
And would Starmer himself still be able to take money from legal firms under Labour’s own plan.
Johnson refuses to confirm government still committed to eastern leg of HS2
Starmer says that was not a yes. So that is one promise the PM won’t stand by.
He says the PM previously told MPs he would build the eastern leg of HS2, going from Birmingham to Leeds. Does he still stand by that?
Johnson says people will benefit hugely from the plans.
Johnson refuses to confirm government still committed to new rail line between Manchester and Leeds
Keir Starmer says trust matters. The government promised a Crossrail for the north, with an entirely new line between Manchester and Leeds. Will the PM stick by that promise?
Johnson says Starmer should wait until tomorrow, when the plan is published. It will be “fantastic”, he says. He says people will be able to see what the government is doing to cut journey times.
Theresa Villiers (Con) asks what the government is doing to help the NHS tackle spiralling waiting lists.
Johnson says the governnment is putting £4.5bn more into the NHS this year, and recruiting more nurses.
Jonathan Edwards (Ind) asks if the PM will back a ban to ban large party donors getting peerages for five years.
Johnson says he will look at that plan when Labour stops taking money from trade unions.
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
What MPs are voting on later today in standards debate
Soon after PMQs the standards debate will start. It is an opposition day debate, meaning that Labour chooses the subject for debate, and, as is allowed, it has tabled two motions.
The first relates to Randox Covid contracs. It is a humble address motion, meaning that if it is passed it is binding on the government, and it requires the government to publish all correspondence between Owen Paterson and Lord Bethell, then a health minister, relating to Covid contracts awarded to Randox, the company employing Paterson, as well as minutes of meetings. This will be put to a vote at 4pm.
The second motion relates to the MPs’ code of conduct. The government has tabled an amendment to the Labour motion, which will be put to the vote. There is an SNP amendment too, but that is not expected to be put to the vote.
The Labour and government proposals overlap, but there are important differences.
The Labour motion says that the Commons standards committee must produce a report by 31 January setting out plans to implement the ban on MPs working political consultants proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2018, and that MPs must get a chance to vote on implementing those proposals in February.
The government amendment says the plan for a ban on MPs working as political consultants, as well as another recommendation from the 2018 report, for a limit to the amount of time MPs can spend on second jobs, could form the basis of a “viable approach”. It says it would like the standards committee to make recommendations by 31 January. But it does not make that deadline binding, and it does not include any reference to when MPs might get a vote on those proposals.
The wording of the motions, and amendments, is on the order paper here (pdf).
Updated
Johnson needs to explain his second job plans to unhappy backbenchers, senior Tory says
In his interview with the Today programme this morning Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the backbench 1922 Committee, admitted that there was “dissatisfaction” amongst Tory MPs over the PM’s plans to limit the scope of second jobs. He did not deny reports that Boris Johnson will be addressing the 1922 Committee tonight, and he said the PM would have to explain himself to his MPs. Clifton-Brown said:
There is dissatisfaction on the back benches and that is why the prime minister needs to make it very clear to members of parliament what he expects from us.
There are plenty of quotes in the papers this morning illustrating the extent of this anger, although generally MPs have been speaking out without being quoted by name. This is from the Times, which has splashed on the story (paywall).
There was a backlash yesterday from Tory MPs with outside interests, who accused him of capitulation. One said: “It’s pouring petrol on to the flames. He’s caved to the left. Now if you have a consultancy it will be assumed you’re evil.”
Another MP said that Johnson announced the plans because he was concerned about being embarrassed during an appearance before the liaison committee of MPs this afternoon. “There’s a lot of unease. It’s the lurching, the U-turning, the lack of consultation.”
Wednesday's Times: “Tory MPs set to revolt over ban on second jobs” #BBCPapers #TomorrowsPapersToday https://t.co/7FuHsAa3Vz pic.twitter.com/MF6qy8rVkg
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) November 16, 2021
This is from the Telegraph’s story.
On Tuesday, dozens of Tory MPs were said to be furious at the Prime Minister’s letter, with many questioning the ambiguity of the proposals and questioning how far reaching they could be. One backbencher told The Telegraph: “The prime minister has opened Pandora’s Box. We have nothing to control it now.”
These are from the Telegraph’s Christopher Hope last night.
Rumours that Sir Graham Brady might ask Boris Johnson to the 1922 committee tomorrow to explain his reforms to their ‘second jobs’.
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) November 16, 2021
It is hard to understate the anger. “Are we going to have to keep time sheets?” one asks me.
One MP source: “The letter has not been thought through. It is a panicked response and shows. Who decides what is a reasonable amount of time? Who decides what advice a Director can give. This needs carefull thought. MPs are unhappy to be presented with this illogical letter.”
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) November 16, 2021
And this is from the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves.
Some Tory MPs furious over Boris Johnson's plan to restrict second jobs, fearing that Labour will insist on the new rules being drawn excrutiatingly tight. 'He's gone from circling the wagons to handing us over to the indians,' says one
— Jason Groves (@JasonGroves1) November 16, 2021
The UK’s international travel rules have “suppressed demand” and caused “great confusion”, according to the former boss of British Airways’ parent company. The PA Media report goes on:
Ex-IAG chief executive Willie Walsh told MPs that the UK’s testing and quarantine requirements had been “excessive for too long”.
Giving evidence to the transport select committee, he said the rules “continue to discourage people, principally because of the cost of testing”.
Even fully vaccinated travellers must pay for a lateral flow test after they arrive.
Walsh, director-general of airline trade body the International Air Transport Association, said: “There’s no justification for the continued use of these tests based on the data.
“The recovery is definitely being hampered by the bureaucracy associated with UK travel, where a lot of other countries have simplified their procedures.
“Where we see restrictions relaxed or removed, there’s an immediate response in terms of passenger demand, and that’s been witnessed right across the world.”
Johnson can be trusted to keep his promise on Northern Powerhouse Rail, top Tory claims
Almost as soon as he became prime minister Boris Johnson gave a speech saying that he wanted to be “the prime minister who does with Northern Powerhouse Rail what we did for Crossrail in London” and that he was going to “deliver on my commitment to that vision with a pledge to fund the Leeds to Manchester route”. But this week there have been multiple reports suggesting that, when the government’s integrated rail plan is published tomorrow, NPR will be significantly scaled back, and that instead of a new rail line between Manchester and Leeds, there will just be upgrades to the existing line.
On the Today programme this morning Jake Berry, the former Northern Powerhouse minister who now chairs the Northern Research Group for Tory MPs, said that he did not believe Johnson would go back on his promise. He told the programme:
I don’t think people need to worry, because I have been in touch with the prime minister about this. He has reassured me that the integrated rail strategy is going to be “fantastic” for the north.
And, of course, in July 2019 he was a prime minister who stood in Manchester and personally committed to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. That was a commitment repeated in our manifesto at the last general election, and of course a commitment repeated at the Conservative party conference.
I’m old fashioned ... I think commitments made by prime ministers matter, both to the public and to colleagues in parliament. We haven’t seen this review yet. But I and my colleagues across the north are reassured by that personal commitment given to this line by the prime minister ...
In politics you can’t get better than a prime ministerial commitment to the project ...
We have this personal commitment from the prime minister, and I believe on Thursday that will be a commitment he will deliver on.
The Conservative manifesto said: “We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester and then focus on Liverpool, Tees Valley, Hull, Sheffield and Newcastle.”
It would be interesting to know whether Berry has read Beyond A Fringe, the new memoir by his colleague, the former international development secretary Andrew Mitchell. Mitchell backed Johnson for the Tory leadership (to the horror of his liberal friends), but in the book (which is far more personal, gossipy and readable than the usual ministerial memoir), Mitchell recalls asking Johnson two questions very important to him before he offered his endorsement.
‘And will you be keeping DfID [the Department of International Development] as a separate department?’
Boris said, ‘DfID is safe.’
‘And no question of going back on the 0.7% promise [to keep UK aid spending at 0.7% of national income]?’
‘Absolutely,’ he replied.
Both promises, of course, were broken.
Lord Frost, the Brexit minister, has told BBC Radio Ulster that triggering article 16 remains a “very real option” for the UK government. But he said he hoped to be able to reach an agreement with the EU on changes to the Northern Ireland protocol instead. He said:
That’s what we would most like to do. If we can’t, if there can’t be an agreement, then obviously the famous article 16 is a very real option for us.
Frost, who is in Northern Ireland for meetings, also that he thought a deal with the EU was possible.
And he said that government’s main concern with the operation of the protocol related to the checks on goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain that are not destined for the Republic of Ireland. He said:
There are many issues obviously in the command paper, but this question of how goods move from Great Britain into Northern Ireland is obviously at the heart of it. We have said that we don’t see any reason why goods that everyone acknowledges are going to stay in Northern Ireland need to go through processes.
Obviously if they go on into Ireland we have said that we will police them in accordance with EU law, that’s perfectly reasonable, but goods staying in Northern Ireland - why do they need to go through a customs check?
In the past, when citing parts of the protocol unacceptable to the UK, Frost has placed more emphasis on the elements in it giving the European court of justice the final say over deciding how parts of it are interpreted.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the international trade secretary, said this morning she would probably have slapped Stanley Johnson, the PM’s father, if he had smacked her on the bottom, as her fellow Tory MP Caroline Nokes says he did to her 18 years ago. Asked what she would have done, Trevelyan said:
At the time, I would have probably slapped him, which arguably isn’t a better response either, but it would’ve been an instinctive response from me and I think Caroline would’ve shown great personal restraint if she quietly moved away.
According to the Telegraph’s Lucy Fisher, Johnson’s conduct has also been condemned by the Conservative Environment Network (CEN), an independent Tory group for which he acts as an international ambassador.
👀 A Tory environmental group has declared that the conduct alleged of its ambassador Stanley Johnson is “not acceptable”.
— Lucy Fisher (@LOS_Fisher) November 17, 2021
The Conservative Environment Network (CEN) told @Telegraph it is following “internal processes” over the claims
Full statement 👇https://t.co/DCeUVxhiYJ pic.twitter.com/cWh9KTlDK6
Although the CEN is investigating, it has not said whether it has or will suspend Johnson, Fisher reports.
Johnson has not denied the allegation. He has just said he has no recollection of Nokes.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee, told the Today programme this morning that he had “no problem” with Boris Johnson’s proposal to stop MPs working as paid consultants.
But he said he had concerns about other aspects of the plans to curtail the time MPs spend on outsid jobs. He said:
I think we all need to take a long, deep breath on this and get it right.
There are two real aspects to it. One is how we represent our constituents. And the second is what sort of type of people we want in parliament.
Because if we ban all second jobs, I think you are going to deter a whole class of people who represent the business opportunities in this country.
Note the reference to taking a “long, deep breath”. Although Boris Johnson claimed yesterday he wanted to introduce reform “as a matter of urgency”, his MPs and ministers want to proceed slowly. (See 9.18am.) Their desire for foot-dragging doubtless says a lot about their lack of enthusiasm for the whole idea.
Clifton-Brown also suggested that one solution might be for candidates to declare before an election how much time they intended to spend on a second job. He said:
I think one way of getting round this would be to say to all new candidates standing for elections ‘you have to declare an outside job, how many hours you’re going to do and how much you’re paid, and then your electorate can take a view on that and elect you or not as they wish’.
As Sky’s Sophie Morris reports, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the international trade secretary, has been giving different answers this morning when asked how long MPs should be allowed to spend on a second job. Up to 20 hours is her maximum.
Trade Sec Anne-Marie Trevelyan on second jobs tells the BBC: "Are we saying 10 to 20 hours a week outside your work as an MP and a parliamentarian? If that's what you chose to do as your choice, that's fine."
— Sophie Morris (@itssophiemorris) November 17, 2021
That's two full days.
Is the q now: Is being an MP a part time job?
How many hours is acceptable for an MP to be spending on other work? Ms Trevelyan has said:
— Sophie Morris (@itssophiemorris) November 17, 2021
Times Radio: 8-10 hours a week
BBC Breakfast: 10 or 15 hours a week
BBC Today Prog: 10- 20 hours a week
Sky News: Shouldn't be based on cash received
On Times Radio Trevelyan suggested up to eight to 10 hours on an outside job would be acceptable.
"You do a 40 to 50-hour week, say, as a backbench MP and you do eight to 10 hours work on something else."
— Times Radio (@TimesRadio) November 17, 2021
International trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan reveals her perfect ratio for MPs to have second jobs.@AasmahMir | @StigAbell | @annietrev pic.twitter.com/pXrsvbHGUm
On the Today programme Trevelyan said that, because she worked as a cabinet minister and as an MP, she probably worked a 90-hour week. (That would amount to more than 12 hours per day, seven days a week.)
UK inflation jumps to highest level in 10 years as energy bills soar
UK inflation has jumped to the highest level in a decade, hitting a rate more than double the government’s target amid a severe cost of living squeeze from soaring household energy bills, my colleague Richard Partington reports.
MPs could still do 20 hours a week under PM’s plan to limit second jobs, says minister
Good morning. Yesterday Boris Johnson launched a surprise attempt to regain the initiative on the sleaze/standards corruption story, announcing he was backing plans to ban MPs from working as paid consultants, and to limit all second jobs for MPs to what can be done “within reasonable limits”. Judging by some of the MPs quoted anonymously in the papers today, some Tories view these proposals as likely to considerably curtail their outside earnings. But Labour says the actual wording of the government amendment being put to a vote today is more ineffectual than Johnson claims. Here is our overnight story.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the international trade secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and (inadvertently, one assumes) some of her answers suggest Labour is right.
Last night one government source described Johnson’s plan as the “Cox proposal”, because it would stop Sir Geoffrey Cox being able to spend many hours a week working as a laywer, while also being an MP. But when Trevelyan was asked on BBC Breakfast if Cox should have to reduce his hours from an estimated 20 hours a week, she replied:
That’s a question to discuss. Key is, is he doing a good job for his constituents? Do they think he’s doing a good job for them? And, from what I’ve heard, no one has stood up and said otherwise.
On the Today programme Trevelyan was asked if the PM’s proposals would stop Cox doing the work he has been doing in the British Virgin Islands. She replied:
That’s where we’re going to have, I’m sure, a long discussion about what reasonable is.
If you want my opinion, I would say, if you’re doing something else - let’s take someone who maybe is a medic - let’s say two shifts, that will be 16 hours a week, wouldn’t it? So are we saying 10 to 20 hours a week outside your work as an MP and a parliamentarian? If that’s what you choose to do, it’s your choice, that’s fine.
That reference to having a “long” discussion on this is also telling. Labour wants the Commons to vote on implementing reform proposals by February. But, although Johnson said he wanted change “as a matter of urgency” in the letter he published yesterday, his amendment would not guarantee that, and some of the language from government suggests that they just want to kick the whole issue into the long grass.
Trevelyan was also unable to say that the proposal to ban MPs from working as consultants would have stopped Owen Paterson working as a consultant for Randox. She said MPs would be banned under Johnson’s plan from having political consultancy jobs, but she said exactly what that meant would have to be determined.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Tom Pursglove, the immigration minister, gives evidence to the home affairs committee about Channel crossings. At 11am Victoria Atkins, the minister in charge of Afghan resettlement, gives evidence.
12pm: Boris Johnson faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
After 12.45pm: MPs begin the opposition day debates on standards. They will first debate the motion on Randox Covid contracts, and after 4pm they will start they debate on the motion about amending the code of conduct for MPs.
1.30pm: Sir Tom Scholar, permanent secretary at the Treasury, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee, first on the cost of achieving net zero, and after 2pm on the cost of Covid.
2pm: Michael Ellis, paymaster general in the Cabinet Office, gives evidence to the Lords European affairs committee on post-Brexit trade in goods
3pm: Johnson gives evidence to the Commons liaison committee on standards, violence against women and girls, Cop26 and the budget and spending review.
6pm: Johnson is expected to address the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com
Updated
