Robert Jenrick’s special treatment from Boris Johnson further erodes public trust in government

Editorial: Like the Dominic Cummings affair, it looks as though it is one rule for a wealthy elite and another for everyone else

The question is, has Mr Jenrick upheld the very highest standards of propriety?

Robert Jenrick must go. At a moment when, for obvious reasons, the government needs to command the respect of the British people, it cannot afford to have its authority undermined by some unseemly row about a billionaire property developer.

On any reasonable reading of the facts so far as they are known, including the various texts and emails between Mr Jenrick and Richard Desmond, the ministerial code has been broken. Despite its mundane and voluntary sounding name, this is binding on all ministers of the crown and, in effect, forms an important part of the British constitution, though never passed as legislation.

The code could not be clearer regarding conflicts of interest. Section 1.3(f) states: “Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests.”

Section 1.3(g) is also relevant: “Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an obligation.”

Of course Mr Jenrick made no personal gain from his contacts with Mr Desmond or the Westferry development. However, it is accepted fact that the Conservative Party received a donation of £12,000 from Mr Desmond, and there is a perception that the party’s private interests were in conflict, and thus Mr Jenrick’s personal political perceived interests. For what it is worth, in Boris Johnson’s foreword to the ministerial code, talking about the mission of his government, he says that: “To fulfil this mission, and win back the trust of the British people, we must uphold the very highest standards of propriety.”

So the question is, has Mr Jenrick upheld the very highest standards of propriety? Many think not.

The problem with the ministerial code is that, stringent as it is, the final judgement on whether it has been breached, and what penalties might follow, lies with the prime minister. And when the prime minister is Mr Johnson, the dispassionate observer is entitled to ask whether Mr Johnson has always upheld the highest standards of propriety.

At any rate, the prime minister’s spin doctors insisted the matter is “closed”, and refused to answer further enquiries at the Downing Street lobby briefing. It is like a naughty child in the nursery sticking their fingers in their ears. It is not winning the argument about Mr Jenrick’s future.

In the end, as usual, it will be about politics rather than the quasi-judicial arguments about the code. Mr Johnson is no doubt seeing whether the latest dump of the Jenrick-Desmond exchanges will be enough to draw the business to a close as far as the party and the public are concerned. The signs are that the various friendly emails and texts do quite the opposite. No member of the public outside the super-rich elite can expect to find themselves discussing some troubling planning dispute with the cabinet minister responsible for local government, with the power to overrule officials and local planning officers. Not everyone can attend a Tory fundraising dinner, or wish to, in order to show a minister a promotional video for a property development on their phone. Members of the public are usually not given a cabinet minister’s phone number.

Like the Dominic Cummings affair, it looks as though it is one rule for a wealthy elite and another for everyone else.

Right now, before things get even worse and before he becomes indefensible, Mr Jenrick could be thrown overboard and barely make a splash – yesterday’s chip wrapper as the seasoned hacks say. To try to cling to him merely calls into question, again, the prime minister’s own judgement.