Kathryn Stone: It is ‘bonkers' that Boris Johnson was shielded from Downing Street flat probe

Boris Johnson became embroiled in a row over the refurbishment of No 11 Downing Street last year when it was revealed that a Tory peer, had helped finance the works – UK Parliament/Jessica Taylor

It is “bonkers” that Boris Johnson was shielded from a parliamentary probe into the makeover of his Downing Street flat, the Commons sleaze watchdog has said.

Kathryn Stone, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, signalled her frustration at being unable to investigate the Prime Minister over the controversial makeover.

Giving evidence to the committee on standards, she confirmed that she had been unable to investigate the refurbishment of Mr Johnson’s grace-and-favour home because it is a benefit he receives in his ministerial capacity.

Such benefits are therefore recorded in a separate register for ministers, which is policed by Lord Geidt, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, rather than Ms Stone.

However, critics argue that the ministerial register is less transparent and is updated far less frequently than the MPs’ register of interests.

Global Tech News Daily

Lord Geidt is the independent adviser on ministerial interests – Dominic Lipinski

Lord Geidt is also appointed by the Prime Minister and unable to launch investigations into suspected breaches without his authorisation.

Backing calls from senior figures for the system to be overhauled, Ms Stone told the committee: “Lord Evans [another public standards tsar] yesterday…described this process as bonkers. I couldn’t agree more with him about that.

“Members of the public often write to say that ministers are also MPs so why should they be different, why should they be held to a different test and why should there be different rules of transparency about what they register and what they don’t register and so on.”

Asked how the issue could be resolved, Ms Stone suggested that in future the two registers should be merged to form one “which meets the principle of openness.”

Her intervention comes amid an ongoing row over the Number 11 flat makeover, which first erupted last year when it was revealed that Lord Brownlow, a Tory peer, had helped finance the works.

The disclosure led Lord Geidt to launch an inquiry into whether Mr Johnson failed to declare the donations in line with the ministerial code.

Although he later exonerated Mr Johnson of wrongdoing, the controversy was reignited in December when it emerged that key exchanges between Mr Johnson and Lord Brownlow had not been disclosed to Lord Geidt.

Meanwhile, Ms Stone was unable to launch her own inquiry, despite Labour arguing that donations from Lord Brownlow raised questions over whether Mr Johnson broke the rules surrounding his conduct as an MP.

Highlighting the inconsistencies in the system, Ms Stone said: “Members of the public simply cannot understand why a backbench member of Parliament is subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny and requirement to register things like gifts and hospitality than a minister is.

“I know chair you gave an example yesterday of a minister who would register their attendance at an event in the ministerial register and several months later it still hasn’t appeared.

“Members of the public see that as not being transparent, not being open, not following the Nolan principles, and they want to see a clarity around that.”

She also gave a recent example of an event attended by MPs and a number of ministers, all of whom were there as guests and therefore required to register it as hospitality.

However, while the MPs had “28 days to register their attendance, the value and the name of the donor of the hospitality”, Ms Stone pointed out the ministers present “not subject to the same rules even though they were at the same event.”

“It seems inconsistent to us and the public and we need to ensure that ministers are subject to the same scrutiny as backbench MPs,” she added.

Public 'really angry' over second jobs scandal

Amid heightened scrutiny over MPs’ second jobs in the wake of the Owen Paterson scandal, Ms Stone also argued that the public would back tighter curbs on outside interests.

She also acknowledged that the controversy posed a “really challenging time” for her office – an apparent reference to the Government’s aborted attempt to undermine her investigation into Mr Paterson and the recommendation he be suspended for 30 days for paid lobbying.

He later quit Parliament after a major public outcry.

“Members of the public are really angry, they are really angry about the ways in which they see members of parliament exploiting opportunities to make additional money, there is no prohibition on that but members of the public are very angry about that,” she told the committee.

“They are very angry about what they see as conflicts of interest – or perceptions of conflict of interest.”

Similarly, Ms Stone called for more clarification on the use of MPs' offices after she chose not to investigate Sir Geoffrey Cox, the former attorney general, for offering legal advice while using parliament facilities.

Labour had called for Sir Geoffrey to be investigated after he was pictured in September in a virtual meeting representing the British Virgin Islands government, from what appeared to be his Commons office.

While indicating there was a need to adopt a “proportionate approach” to the use of parliamentary offices, Ms Stone told the committee that the public would likely “feel very strongly” against MPs using them to carry out their second jobs.