CALLS on Jacob Rees-Mogg to step down have followed his “disastrous” attempt to save the skin of disgraced former Tory MP Owen Paterson.
After Paterson was found to have lobbied on behalf of firms paying him £100,000 a year, but the Tory government moved to revamp the standards process to save him from suspension.
Despite winning a vote in the Commons, Boris Johnson’s government was forced into a climbdown which reports say has created a great deal of anger towards the top brass from within the Tory party.
Rees-Mogg, the Leader of the House of Commons, was left to announce the humiliating U-turn after opposition parties said they would boycott the Tory-led committee to be brought in to replace the current Westminster standards procedure.
Labour MP Chris Bryant (above), who chairs the Commons Standards Committee, told the i that he believed Rees-Mogg’s position was “untenable” in the wake of the Paterson scandal.
He said: “I personally think the Leader of the House’s position has become untenable. He has created a crisis for Parliament by standing out and talking for 45 minutes in favor of a motion that was the direct, polar opposite of the rule of law.”
READ MORE: Scottish Tories fume at Boris Johnson's 'madness' in Owen Paterson scandal
“I think Jacob Rees-Mogg wanted to deliver an outcome because of a personal friendship”, he added.
Commenting on Twitter, SNP MP Pete Wishart said he agreed with Bryant, adding: “It was Rees-Mogg who initiated and introduced that disastrous motion that caused such public consternation and eroded trust in our politics. It was he who defended it to the hilt.
“His position is pretty much untenable.”
Bryant also told the i paper that Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, has been given additional security as a result of an “orchestrated smear campaign.”
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng (above) has been the focus of calls from Labour after he appeared to call for Stone to consider her position after the Paterson scandal.
Bryant has himself been accused of using public funds for his own gain after he reportedly profited to the tune of £650,000.
Despite owning a flat in London, he claimed more than £80,000 from the taxpayer to rent another property for himself, while simultaneously renting out the property he owned.
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