Boris Johnson shouldn’t attend emergency Commons sleaze debate, cabinet minister says

‘He will no doubt have the House of Commons on in his office as he’s dealing with many, many other issues,’ Anne-Marie Trevelyan suggests

Boris Johnson doesn’t need to attend an emergency debate in the Commons on standards and sleaze and can follow proceedings on television from his office, a cabinet minister has said.

It comes after Sir Keir Starmer insisted that a no-show by the prime minister at the parliamentary debate on Monday would demonstrate that he was “either too arrogant or too cowardly to take responsibility” for the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.

Just last week the government was forced into a humiliating U-turn over the decision to block Mr Paterson’s 30-day suspension with plans to create a Conservative-dominated committee to rewrite sleaze rules MPs have to abide by.

Asked whether Mr Johnson will be attending the debate, the international trade secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan told Sky News: “I’m afraid I don’t know that.

“These sorts of debates are usually led and fronted by the ministers — I imagine, but I’m afraid I don’t know, that Jacob Rees-Mogg and the [Commons] leader’s team will be probably be covering.”

Quizzed on whether Mr Johnson should be attending, she replied: “My opinion would be that no he shouldn’t be there.

“He will no doubt — as we all do — have the House of Commons on in his office as he’s dealing with many, many other issues that only a prime minister that can deal with.

“He will get a briefing of the key issues raised by colleagues from across the House later on, I believe that the Leader and other ministers will be well placed to take the despatch box this afternoon.”

On the contentious issue of MPs’ second jobs and amid reports the Commons standard committee is considering banning politicians from having consultancy roles, Ms Trevelyan said: “This has been an issue that has kicked around for many years.”

“My view is that most of who do for instance, those who doctors and nurses who continue to maintain their professional credentials and indeed serve in their original profession, I think the question of MPs holding jobs that involve lobbying perhaps should be looked at again.

“But I don’t think we should have the removal of the ability to maintain or have a second job because it brings a richness to our role as members of parliament as well the work we do day-to-day in our constituencies.”

Ms Trevelyan also suggested that people were elevated to the House of Lords “for all sorts of reasons” amid allegations of access to the upper chamber for Conservative party donors.

A joint report by The Sunday Times and Open Democracy claimed that wealth benefactors “appear to be guaranteed a peerage if they take on the temporary role as the party treasurer and increase their own donations beyond £3 million”.

On Sunday, the SNP MP Pete Wishart, claimed the honours system had been “abused” by the Conservatives, adding: “The Metropolitan Police should launch a fresh cash for honours investigation”.

But Ms Trevelyan defended the peerages on Sky News, saying the party wanted a “rich mix” of people in the House of Lords.

She said: “I don’t think that someone who happens to have been an extremely good businessman and has made a great deal of money through business activity - usually also an enormous amount of philanthropy as well, those are the sorts of people who are across our country, amazing people of all political colours - that they should be barred from going to the House of Lords because they have made a lot of money, employed many, many thousands of people, run incredible businesses at their own risk, that that somehow is a bar, that’s not the case.

“Those who choose to put themselves forward in political environments, as well as their business and philanthropic ones, will go through the process just like anyone else and we want a rich mix in the House of Lords of voices with experience of all the sectors of our country.”