Boris Johnson backs ban on MPs working as paid consultants – as it happened

And here are more lines from Keir Starmer’s press conference.

• Starmer said that, if the government accepts the motion that Labour has tabled for tomorrow (see 3pm), that would be a “very important victory” for his party. He said:

If the motion that we are putting down is now accepted across the house, then that is a very significant step forward, not least because the motion is binding, and therefore this is a meaningful vote, and a very important victory for the Labour party.

But Starmer also said he wanted to look at the small print of Boris Johnson’s announcement. (See 3.56pm.) He appeared to be taken by surprise by the letter.

• He said that peers would not be covered by his proposed ban on most second jobs for MPs.

• He would not commit to banning Labour MPs from having second jobs without such a ban applying to other MPs too. As an opposition party, he said he wanted to get cross-party support for this proposal. (That seems unlikely to happen.) But he also said that if Labour won the election, the party would implement this change.

• He accepted the legal work that he did himself before he became party leader would not be allowed under his proposal for most second jobs to be banned.

• He said his proposed ban on MPs having second jobs would not cover media appearances or writing books.

• He praised Caroline Nokes for revealing that she was touched inappropriately by Stanley Johnson 18 years ago, saying it took “great bravery” to speak out in this way. He said:

The allegations are serious and they need to be fully investigated, I don’t think at this stage it’s for me to say what should happen as a result.

But it takes guts and bravery to come forward to make allegations like this. They now need to be fully investigated either by the Conservative party or by the criminal authorities.

In his opening remarks at his press conference Keir Starmer outlined a five-point programme to clean up politics.

First, he said he wanted to ban “all second jobs for MPs”, with very limited exceptions.

That should start tomorrow with the Commons passing the motion to ban MPs from working as paid parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, he said. (See 3pm.)

Second, he said there should also be a five-year ban on former ministers taking jobs in the sectors they used to regulate.

Third, there should be tighter rules to stop foreign money coming into British politics, he said.

Fourth, there should be a new Office of Value for Money, to stop the waste of taxpayers’ money, and reform for the procurement system.

And, fifth, a new independent Integrity and Ethics Commission should be set up to improve standards in government.

At the Labour press conference, when told about the prime minister’s letter, Keir Starmer’s initial reaction was to say: “So we’ve won the vote tomorrow already.”

Here are the key points from the Boris Johnson letter to the Commons Speaker proposing a ban on MPs working as paid consultants or lobbyists. (See 3.36pm.)

• Johnson says the code of conduct for MPs should be updated so that it “continues to command the confidence of the public”.

• He says the government is specifically backing two proposals in the report published by the Commitee on Standards in Public Life three years ago (pdf). They are recommendation 1, which says:

The code of conduct for MPs should be updated to state that: ‘Any outside activity undertaken by a MP, whether remunerated or unremunerated, should be within reasonable limits and should not prevent them from fully carrying out their range of duties’.

This rule would almost certainly force Sir Geoffrey Cox to cut back on his legal work. According to the Daily Mail, in some years Cox has devoted almost 30 hours a week to his legal work. (Cox said last week that he regularly works 70 hours per week, and that casework for his constituents is always given primary importance.)

And the government backs recommendation 10, which says:

The code of conduct for MPs and guide to the rules should be updated to state: ‘MPs should not accept any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on parliamentary affairs or on how to influence parliament and its members. MPs should never accept any payment or offers of employment to act as political or parliamentary consultants or advisers’.

Johnson says it is parliament to decide its code of conduct, not the government. But he says: “The government believes that these two recommendations form the basis of viable approach which could command the confidence of parliamentarians and the public.”

• Johnson says it is “a matter of regret that the house has not yet taken forward these specific recommendations”. Given that Johnson has been in office for more than two years, and that the government decides what matters are put to the Commons for debate, this is disingenuous, because it implies that someone else is to blame. In Johnsonland, it is probably as close as you get to an apology.

• Johnson says these two recommendations should be implemented “as a matter of urgency”.

This actually goes further than the proposal set out in the Labour motion, as reported by Kitty Donaldson at 3pm, because that only directly calls for recommendation 10 in the 2018 report to be implemented.

The Conservatives have hit back. Boris Johnson has just posted this on Twitter.

He says the government is backing a ban on MPs working as paid consultants or lobbyists.

MPs are already banned from working as paid lobbyists, subject to a narrow exception. But a ban on MPs working as political consultants would be news.

Keir Starmer is about to hold a press conference about the Labour vote tomorrow on stopping MPs working as paid consultants. There will be a live feed here.

Simon Coveney, Ireland’s foreign minister, has said he is unsure whether a change in tone from London on the negotiation over Northern Ireland is merely a “tactical drawback” by Boris Johnson’s government or cause for optimism.

Speaking following a meeting in Brussels with the EU Brexit commissioner, Maroš Šefčovič, Coveney said:

The EU team this week is up for making progress ... They want to be focused on solutions, and working in partnership with the British negotiating team so that by the time Lord Frost meets [European Commission] vice-president Šefčovič on Friday in Brussels there can be the basis of real and measurable progress that hopefully both sides could could take as a starting point to generate momentum to try to solve a whole series of other issues that need solutions over the next few weeks.

Coveney said that EU member states would most likely be briefed by the commission on the possible retaliatory options should the UK trigger article 16, suspending parts of the current post-Brexit arrangements, but that the focus remained on success in the ongoing talks. He said:

You’re likely to see probably an informal, verbal briefing of member states in terms of the approach that the EU would likely take. And I think that’s positive thinking on the commission’s behalf. What we don’t want now is a focus on the consequences of triggering article 16.

Coveney said there was “hope” that the talks could be successfully concluded by Christmas but that this depended on whether the UK government was sincere in its recent claims to want a deal. He said:

It’s just hard to know whether this is a tactical sort of pullback for now or whether it’s a genuine effort to try to find a way forward. But our job is to be positive, to be optimistic, and to try to create windows of opportunity when they are there ... I have to say, everybody is now focusing on negotiation and trying to find solutions. But if that fails, and if article 16 is triggered, and the British government decides to take that unilateral action, then I think there will be strong unity.

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, puts the motion to a vote. Those in favour shout aye. No one objects, and the motion passes without a division.

For reference, here it is in full.

That, notwithstanding the practice of this house relating to questions already decided in the same session, this house:

(1) rescinds the resolution and order of 3 November 2021 relating to the third report of the committee on standards (HC 797) and the appointment of a new select committee;

(2) approves the third report of the committee on standards (HC 797);

and (3) notes that Mr Owen Paterson is no longer a member of this house.

Sir Christopher Chope (Con) says rescinding a motion passed less than two weeks ago is a “major constitutional decision”. That is why he thought it was important to trigger a debate (which he did last night, by preventing the motion backing the support going through on the nod).

He says he is glad opposition MPs have welcomed the chance to have a debate.

Alicia Kearns (Con) says MPs have already spent four and a half hours debating this already (in the original debate, and in the subsequent three-hour emergency debate called by the Lib Dems).

Chope claims Kearns has not “applied her mind” to the point he is making, about the need for the house, not the executive, to decide if it wants to rescind a decision it has already taken.

Shall I express shock or outrage at what she is saying? Because clearly in the time to which she has been referring she hasn’t applied her mind to the principle issue and that is that the government encouraged everybody, including her probably, to vote for a motion on November 3.

That motion was passed by resolution of this house and for that motion to be rescinded or changed is a matter for this House rather than for the executive and the government.

He says Rees-Mogg raised three concerns with the process by which Paterson was investigated two weeks ago: the fact that 17 witnesses did not give evidence in person; the apparent reinterpretation of rules relating to whistleblowers; and the penalty applied.

He says MPs should not be subject to “mob rule, or mob justice”.

Pete Wishart, the SNP spokesperson on Commons affairs, says this affair has been an “utter disaster”.

He points out that Jacob Rees-Mogg did not even apologise. If he had “a smidgen of self-respect”, he would have resigned.

He says the government wanted to set up a “kangaroo court committee of corruption” to review the Paterson case, chaired by a Conservative MP.

He says there is a new generation of Tory MPs. “Some of them are even quite good,” he says. He tells them they are being let down by their older colleagues, like Rees-Mogg, who have been responsible for this affair.

Rees-Mogg has “opened a Pandora’s box of Tory sleaze”, he says. He says it is not over yet; in fact it has only just begun, he says.

Theresa May, the former Conservative prime minister, is speaking now.

She says she hopes no MP will vote against the motion today.

I trust that no member of this house is thinking of doing anything other than supporting the motion that is being moved by the leader of the house.

Passing this motion will be a step in the right direction but it will not undo the damage that has been done by the vote of 3 November.

Let’s be clear this is not a party political issue. Damage has been done to all members of parliament and to parliament as a whole.

She says she read the Paterson report.

I believe the conclusion was clear and fair, Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy and the attempt by members of this house, aided and abetted by the government, under cover of reform of the process effectively to clear his name was misplaced, ill-judged and just plain wrong.

It would be a mistake to think that because someone broke the rules, the rules were wrong.

The rule on paid advocacy is a longstanding one.

The problem came because there was an attempt to effectively let off a then-member of the house.

That flew in the face of the rules on paid advocacy and in the face of the processes established by this house.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, is opening the debate.

This is an awkward occasion for him because he was the minister who proposed the motion two weeks ago saying that Owen Paterson should be spared from suspension from the Commons.

He says he has listened to MPs since the original vote.

Today’s motion rescinds the house decision of November 3 to appoint an ad hoc committee. It also approves the third report of the committee on standards while noting Owen Paterson is no longer a member of the House.

I have listened carefully to the views expressed since the debate and decision on November 3, and I want to make it clear that MPs must uphold the highest standards in public life.

We expect all members to abide by the prevailing rules of conduct, paid lobbying is wrong and members found guilty of this should pay the necessary penalties.

Our standards system must function robustly and fairly to support this, so that it commands the confidence of members and of the general public.

Stephen Timms (Lab) asks why the government got it wrong two weeks ago.

Rees-Mogg says the answer is simple. He says the tragedy that affected Paterson (the death of his wife) “coloured and clouded” his judgment. “It is as simple and as sad as that,” he says.

I think it was simply the tragedy that afflicted Mr Paterson coloured and clouded our judgement, and my judgement, incorrectly and it is as simple and as sad as that ... I regret that the amendment conflated an individual case with more general concerns, that was a mistake.

MPs are about to debate the standards committee report on Owen Paterson. It will be the third time the matter has come to the house. The first time, MPs voted to shelve the report saying he should be suspended for 30 days for breaking lobbying rules, in a move that backfired catastrophically for Boris Johnson. And last night, following a government U-turn (or, arguably, two - first the government decided to scrap the committee set up in the original vote to review the case, and then the government agreed to a fresh vote on the Paterson report, after first implying one was unnecessary), the report was supposed to go through on the nod - until the Tory MP Sir Christopher Chope objected.

As the i’s Paul Waugh points out, Conservative MPs are largely staying away for the latest attempt to get this through.

Here are the main points from the Downing Street lobby briefing, which ended a few minutes ago.

• Downing Street gave a cautious welcome to the news that Germany has suspended approval for the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia. Asked about the news, the prime minister’s spokesman said:

We have noted that Germany has, at least temporarily suspended, certification on Nord Stream 2. We have long set out our opposition to Nord Stream 2 and the risks that it can pose to security in the region. It is something the prime minister has talked about for a long time now and we will continue to speak to our European partners, and indeed Ukraine, on this issue.

According to the readout from cabinet, Boris Johnson also raised this when he spoke with his ministers this morning. No 10 said:

[Johnson] reiterated his concern about the ongoing situation on the Ukraine border and emphasised that the UK will continue to support the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Following his speech last night he underlined the UK’s opposition to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which would divert supplies from the Ukraine and could have significant security implications for the region.

• The spokesman said that the future of the Elgin Marbles was a matter for the British Museum. Asked how the PM would respond to a request today from the Greek prime minister for the marbles to be returned to Athens (see 11.31am), the spokesman said:

I won’t pre-empt their meeting. Possession of the marbles is a matter purely for the museum. It is not one for the UK government ...

The British Museum operates independently of the government. It is free, rightly, from political interference. Any decisions relating to the collections are taken by the museum’s trustees. And any question about the location for the Parthenon sculptures is a matter for them.

But in the past Johnson has said the UK government is firmly opposed to the return of the marbles to Greece. (See 11.31am.) It was not clear from the briefing whether the UK government has actually changed its position, or whether No 10 is just offloading responsibility on the British Museum for today so as to give Johnson a polite means of disappointing his Greek counterpart.

The idea that the British Museum can operate entirely independently from the government may also come as a surprise to anyone in this sector, for reasons set out very well by my colleague Charlotte Higgins in this recent column.

• The spokesman rejected the suggestion from former cabinet secretaries that his is not setting a good example on standards. (See 11.03am.) “The prime minister abides by the rules are set out, as he expects other MPs to do,” the spokesman said. Asked if the PM agreed with the ex-mandarins that the recent Committee on Standards in Public Life recommendations should be implemented, the spokesman said the government would be replying to them in due course.

• The spokesman would not say how government MPs will be whipped on the Labour motion tomorrow saying MPs should be banned from having paid directorship and consultancies. He said No 10 has not yet seen the wording of the motion, showing exactly what the party is proposing. But the spokesman again refused to back the principle of what Labour is proposing. Asked if the PM supported such a ban, the spokesman just said Johnson thought “that an MP’s primary job is and must be to serve their constituents and to represent their interests in parliament, they should be visible in their constituencies and be available to help their constituents with any matters of concern”.

• The spokesman would not comment on the allegation that the PM’s father, Stanley Johnson, touched the Conservative MP inappropriately. The spokesman said it was not for him to comment on specific allegations about a private individual. Asked if the PM condemned groping in general, the spokesman said: “Of course anyone that commits something which is a criminal act we would not condone.”

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, has admitted that he was instrumental in persuading the PM to order Conservative MPs to vote in favour of sparing Owen Paterson from the 30-day suspension proposed by the Commons standards committee. In his latest Moggcast podcast for ConservativeHome, Rees-Mogg says that what he did was wrong, and that in hindsight it was an “obvious mistake”. He says he thought Paterson had been punished enough (by the death of his wife by suicide - which Paterson attributes partly to the stress caused by the inquiry into his lobbying). He goes on:

That was clearly a mistake. It was not seen by the electorate as merciful, it was seen as being self-serving, and that has not been helpful to the government or to parliament.

The Times’ Henry Zeffman has the full quote.

The Times this morning publishes a letter (paywall) signed by all living former cabinet secretaries. The main points are moderately interesting although, because they are all English civil servants accustomed to communicating by implication and nuance, the real message is much stronger than a superficial reading suggests.

In their letter, the five mandarins - Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Wilson of Dinton, Lord O’Donnell, Lord Turnbull and Lord Sedwill - say the government should implement the recommendations in the recent report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. They say the commissioner for public appointments and the independent adviser on ministerial interests should be put on a statutory basis, and that rules about former ministers taking up business jobs need to be strengthened.

On the ministerial code, they say it should be “strictly enforced”, but with a mechanism for recognising “that some breaches are more important than others”. The committee report says there should be a range of sanctions available for ministers who break the code, including apologies, fines and resignation.

But the letter gets most interesting at the end. The five peers go on:

Rules, though, will only take us so far. Good people will behave well. Bad people may find ways round whatever rules there are, and we should aim to frame regulations to make cheating them harder. But ultimately we need all in positions of trust to set an example: as Lord Evans of Weardale [chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life] said, our political system is a common good that we all have a responsibility to preserve and improve.

Peter Hennessy, the historian and crossbench peer, is credited with coining what he calls the “good chaps theory of government”. What he means by this is that, because large parts of the British constitution are not codified (or at least weren’t - it has changed a bit in recent years), and depend on informal norms, the whole system depends on the assumption that the key players will behave decently. What the former cabinet secretaries seem to be saying is that this no longer applies, and that tighter rules are needed because the “bad people theory of government” is the one that applies now.

Who could they possibly be referring to? You don’t need to be as clever as Hennessy to guess, although the ex-mandarins don’t say in their letter. On the Today programme this morning Nick Robinson was similarly coy when he asked Lord O’Donnell what might be done about a theoretical prime minister “who is not much interested in what the rules say”. Could rules ever force someone like that to uphold standards? O’Donnell replied:

Well ... you could do quite a lot by rules and by legislation, by forcing people to behave in certain ways. But, ideally, you want people who have a strong instinct for public sector ethos and for obeying the rules. Good people make for good governance.

The Manchester Evening News and other leading local and regional papers in the north of England have today launched a joint campaign calling on the government to honour its promises to the north on rail. It has been triggered by reports that Northern Powerhouse Rail will not be delivered in full. These are from the MEN’s Jennifer Williams.

And here is an extract from Williams’ article.

Enough’s enough. The prime minister has been prepared to use chronic central government neglect of Northern England to his political advantage. It is time to keep his side of the bargain.

Where rail investment is concerned, that does not mean a smattering of piecemeal upgrades dressed up as a transport revolution, ready for deployment on leaflets at the next election.

It means new inter-city lines to and across the North, a move supported both by Northern leaders and the Conservative manifesto.

Damian Hinds, the security minister, was on interview duty for No 10 this morning and, when asked about this story, he said he could not comment on the specifics until the integrated rail review is published, on Thursday.

But he insisted the government was committed to levelling up. He said:

We’re absolutely committed to levelling up, I think that runs through ... is infused in everything government does, transport also is part of that, and so and so many other things.

Good morning. Ministers were hoping last night to be able to finally bury the Owen Paterson issue, with MPs set to nod through a motion finally approving the standards committee report saying he broke the rules on paid lobbying, which Boris Johnson originally ordered his MPs to object to. But, as my colleagues Aubrey Allegretti and Rowena Mason report, the embarrassment was extended for another day when the maverick and reactionary Tory backbencher Sir Christopher Chope blocked the approval of the report.

This means that MPs will instead debate the motion for an hour today, before voting on it in the early afternoon.

Chope does not seem to have given a public explanation for what he did yet, but he has a long record of objecting to parliament approving measures without proper scrutiny. That is one of the reasons why he devotes much energy to slaughtering private members’ bills.

As Aubrey reports, Tory MPs are livid with their off-message colleague, whose behaviour last night allowed allowed opposition parties to say “after two weeks of this scandal, the government couldn’t even perform their sleaze U-turn successfully”. (That was the SNP, but Labour said much the same.)

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Boris Johnson chairs cabinet.

10.30am: Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, speaks at an Institute for Government event.

11.30am: Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 12.45pm: MPs begin a one-hour debate on the standards committee report into Owen Paterson.

2.20pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, makes a statement to MSPs on Covid.

2.30pm: George Eustice, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environment committee on labour shortages in food and farming.

2.30pm: Lord Burnett of Maldon, the lord chief justice, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee.

4.15pm: Amanda Pritchard, the NHS England chief executive, speaks at the NHS Providers conference.

Also, at some point today, Johnson is meeting the Greek prime minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis, in No 10.

There is also what is likely to be a riveting select committee hearing this morning on Yorkshire’s county cricket club’s response to the racism allegations made by Azeem Rafiq. Rafiq is giving evidence at 9.30am, and my colleague John Ashdown is covering it on a separate live blog here.

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