BORIS Johnson will face a showdown with his own backbenchers over plans to ban MPs from paid political consultancy work.
MPs will vote on new rules to curb their outside business interests amid a fresh row over Tory “dirty tricks” and Westminster “sleaze”.
The Prime Minister announced that he supported a ban on consultancy ahead of a vote on the issue called by Sir Keir Starmer on Wednesday.
The UK Government effectively took over Labour’s opposition day debate by tabling an amendment with its own proposals.
The move provoked a furious response from Labour who accused ministers of “watering down” their original motion, effectively making it non-binding.
READ MORE: Boris Johnson 'gives Douglas Ross the red card' with changes to MP rules
And the move is also inflaming tensions between the Prime Minister and his backbenchers.
Johnson will face the backbench 1922 Committee later on Wednesday in a bid to repair relations with his MPs.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, treasurer of the 1922 Committee, said there was “dissatisfaction” with the Prime Minister within the Tory ranks.
He told BBC’s Today programme that he had “no problem” with a ban on paid consultancy work but going further could “deter a whole class of people” from entering politics.
“I think we all need to take a long, deep breath on this and get it right,” he said.
“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.”
Another Conservative MP expressed his anger over Johnson's plans, asking The Telegraph: “Are we going to have to keep time sheets?”
Relations between Johnson and his MPs have been strained by the Owen Paterson furore, when Tories were ordered to support a move to block the former minister’s immediate suspension for breaking lobbying rules only for the Government to U-turn in the face of a furious backlash.
Sir Geoffrey 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.”
Labour’s proposal calls for a ban on “any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”.
Crucially, it also includes provisions requiring the Commons Standards Committee to come forward with proposals to implement the ban and guaranteeing time on the floor of the House for MPs to debate and vote on them.
In contrast, the more vaguely worded Government amendment simply describes the consultancy ban as “the basis of a viable approach” and supports the work of the Standards Committee to update the MPs’ code of conduct.
Shadow Commons leader Thangam Debbonaire said it was “typical Tory dirty tricks” and an attempt to water down the proposals.
Cabinet minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan suggested that MPs could reasonably work up to 20 hours a week on a second job.
The International Trade Secretary told the BBC: “I think there is a common-sense test which is if you probably do 40-50 hours a week doing your main job, doing 10 or 15 hours a week doing something else, whatever you choose to do in your spare time, whether that’s paid or not paid, is something that is part of the richness of what you bring as an individual to your role as an MP.”
She later revised that figure up, telling Today: “Let’s say two shifts, that would be 16 hours a week. 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.”
Ahead of his potentially awkward meeting with the 1922 Committee, Johnson will face his usual session of Prime Minister’s Questions in the Commons before being grilled by senior MPs on the Liaison Committee.
In a further sign of concern at standards in politics, a second Labour motion will attempt to force the Government to release minutes of meetings between ministers, officials and Randox.
Randox is the diagnostics company which employed Paterson, the former cabinet minister who triggered the storm, as a consultant.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon reacts as Douglas Ross mutters comment: 'He's a charmer!'
And there is fresh scrutiny of the role of all-party parliamentary groups (APPGs) and the firms which provide support for them.
The Commons Committee on Standards launched an investigation into the groups in late 2020 and the BBC reported that an estimated £30 million has been poured into APPGs over the past five years.
The BBC investigation found that of that total, an estimated £6.4 million was donated by companies registered as lobbyists.
Tory MP Michael Fabricant said he welcomed the inquiry into the groups as “some are thought to receive large sums of money from foreign governments and companies”.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel