DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Silent Sir Bernard shows no integrity
When the Commons privileges committee grilled Boris Johnson over lying to Parliament about lockdown parties in Downing Street, one key member couldn’t resist clambering on to his moral high horse.
In a toe-curlingly sanctimonious piece of political grandstanding, Sir Bernard Jenkin upbraided the former PM for raising a toast to a departing member of staff. Under the Covid rules, he scolded, indoor social gatherings were ‘not acceptable’.
Three months after this interrogation, he signed off the controversial report which condemned Mr Johnson for Partygate transgressions – and the draconian punishments which brought down the curtain, for now, on his political career.
The trouble with sitting on high horses, though, is that if you’re not careful, you can easily fall off them. And Sir Bernard may be bracing himself for a spectacular tumble.
For the police are investigating claims that the Tory grandee committed a ‘flagrant breach’ of Covid regulations by attending an illicit drinks party for his wife’s birthday in Westminster during lockdown.
In a toe-curlingly sanctimonious piece of political grandstanding, Sir Bernard Jenkin upbraided the former PM for raising a toast to a departing member of staff
No wrongdoing has been proved. But to many, Sir Bernard’s silence – and refusal to deny the accusations – points towards guilt.
Of course, some will roll their eyes at the prospect of Scotland Yard spending even more time and resources probing alleged misdemeanours from three years ago.
But this episode does have serious implications for natural justice – not least for Mr Johnson.
The privileges committee is supposed to be scrupulously neutral (although there were concerns it was from the start a kangaroo court convened to find him guilty).
If Sir Bernard knew he had broken the same rules Mr Johnson was accused of, how could he have acted impartially? He surely should have recused himself from the role.
He should also step down (at least temporarily) as chairman of the liaison committee – the most senior of all Commons committees – which holds the Prime Minister to account.
It diminishes Parliament that he continues to sit grandly in judgment of others while facing a police investigation.
Sir Bernard is very quick to decry those who fail to uphold the highest standards in public life. Clinging on to his prominent Commons posts while under the cloud of suspicion is not the action of a man who sets such great store by integrity.
Insidious censors
Our universities should be embarrassed and ashamed that the Government needs to remind them about the vital importance of freedom of expression and thought.
These temples of learning were established precisely so orthodoxies could be examined and new ideas tested. But recently a belligerent minority has sought to ostracise, intimidate and ‘cancel’ those who disagree with ‘woke’ dogmas.
Terrifyingly, it is not just student bodies to blame. The university authorities and academics have been increasingly complicit, either deliberately or by declining to stand up to activists.
Education minister Claire Coutinho correctly identifies the damage this ‘insidious censorship’ is doing.
If students and universities surrender to groupthink our culture and economy will suffer. The laboratory of ideas must remain open to all.
Education minister Claire Coutinho correctly identifies the damage this ‘insidious censorship’ is doing
Ministers are desperate for us to switch to electric vehicles to meet unscientific and damaging Net Zero emissions targets.
But what is the point in banning sales of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 if, as the Government’s infrastructure tsar warns, the electricity grid can’t cope without £30billion of investment?
So we end up stuck with higher energy bills or taxes to pay for upgrades – or expensive eco-vehicles we can’t charge up!
