Owen Paterson affair: Attempt by Boris Johnson's government to change standards rules has caused real anger among MPs of all parties – Christine Jardine MP

This has been a week when Boris Johnson and his government almost made you want to apologise for being an MP.

Owen Paterson has paid a heavy price for his mistakes, the real scandal centres on those in government who tried to rig the process (Picture: House of Commons/PA)

Yet another accusation of sleaze and abuse of power which is frustrating for those of us, including many in his own party, who find the disrespect and lack of contrition in the behaviour unacceptable.

Over the past two years there have been accusations of bullying and of breaches of the ministerial codes. There was the cronyism in the awarding of contracts during Covid for equipment that proved useless. The questions over who paid for the Prime Minter’s holiday in Mustique and, of course, the controversial Downing Street flat decorations.

But they all pale into insignificance compared to a government prepared to use the findings of an independent assessor against one MP to rig the system for their benefit.

By conflating one individual case of an MP found to have breached the rules, with a sudden desire for arbitrary changes to the system of scrutiny, the message that the Johnson bunch sent out was as clear as it was intolerable: we don’t like this judgement so we are changing the rules.

That impression was made worse the next morning by a minister suggesting that the independent standards commissioner should review her position.

I know from colleagues on the Conservative benches that many of them shared the common feelings of anger at their leadership’s contempt not just for parliament, for the people’s representatives, but for democracy itself. Because there are good people in all parties who are in politics because we believe in public service and doing everything we can to build a fairer society which allows everyone to achieve their potential.

Yet this week the stench of sleaze and self-interest seeping out from Downing Street was almost overpowering.

It was impossible to escape the conclusion that this is a leadership which believes that there should be one rule for us and none for them.

That they are as entitled to shift the goalposts when it suits them, as when they are to take a private jet home while entreating the rest of us to cut our carbon emissions.

I want to stress at the outset that this is not a comment aimed at Owen Paterson, the former cabinet minister who has paid a heavy personal and professional price for mistakes.

Neither is it directed at the many decent and honourable colleagues in the Conservative party who stood up against one of the most disreputable incidents I have witnessed in parliament and refused to vote for it.

It is squarely targeted at those at the centre of government who thought it acceptable to try to rig the future process for their own benefit.

Because this is not some inter-party, Westminster bubble feud about an arcane issue that has little to do with the real world.

Those squabbles quite rightly fizzle out quickly and rarely register a flicker of interest amongst the general public.

This is an issue that goes to the very heart of our democratic principles and has nothing to do with party politics.

It is the sort of behaviour that undermines the public’s trust in their elected representative and, by extension, their belief in democracy itself.

The current system of scrutiny of parliamentary standards was designed in the wake of cash for questions and the expenses scandal to ensure independent scrutiny of MPs’ behaviour.

There are clear rules to prevent abuses of power and influence in return for money, favour or personal benefits. They apply equally, and rightly to all of us.

To have acquiesced would have been to bring into disrepute everything that I believe in and work for on behalf of the people of Edinburgh West.

That was why I voted against the government’s move on Wednesday and supported the emergency debate today which is, in effect, a protest by Liberal Democrats, SNP, Labour and Conservatives at the disgraceful behaviour of the government.

The decision to hold the debate depended on sufficient numbers of MPs being in the chamber to stand in unison and record their support when asked by the Speaker.

Minutes before the application was heard a steady stream of MPs filled the previously empty benches, clearly there for one reason and one reason alone.

The already electric atmosphere was heightened further when, after a short pause, the longest-serving current MP, the Father of the House, Sir Peter Bottomley rose to his feet in answer to the Speaker’s question.

The former member of Margaret Thatcher’s ministerial team had also been highly critical of the government’s actions the day before.

His was not the only support from the Conservative benches but it spoke volumes and was greeted by cheers and calls of gratitude.

Elsewhere members of Johnson’s Cabinet were already rowing back from the decision as quickly as they could, in response more to front pages and morning headlines heavy with condemnation than a respect for parliament.

But the damage was already done. Even those newspapers on whom the government can usually depend for positive coverage were distancing themselves and calling out the ‘sleaze’ they were witnessing.

The swift U-turn served only to emphasise how ill-judged the original strategy had been.

Media speculation has already shifted to what the real motivation for the clumsy attempt to shift the goal-posts might have been.

Political reporters are furiously investigating what other indiscretions or potential breaches of the rules might be in the pipeline that the government is keen to see closed off.

And pollsters are wondering what the impact of the week’s revelations might be on that previously safe North Shropshire Conservative majority.

I suspect that Downing Street spin doctors are even now looking for a tactic to distract us all from the past week’s disgraceful behaviour.

But I doubt it will work. I think the public is on to them.

Christine Jardine is the Scottish Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this article. We're more reliant on your support than ever as the shift in consumer habits brought about by coronavirus impacts our advertisers.

If you haven't already, please consider supporting our trusted, fact-checked journalism by taking out a digital subscription.