Boris Johnson’s plan to impose limits on MPs’ second jobs in the wake of the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal has been abandoned.

       The Government will not be progressing with a proposal to enforce “reasonable” restrictions on outside work to prevent MPs neglecting their full “range of duties”.

       It comes as Lord Evans, the ethics watchdog chief, reignited the debate by reiterating calls for an “indicative” ceiling on the time MPs spend on other ventures.

       The chairman of the committee on standards in public life told Sky News: “We’ve suggested that one might want to give indicative figures in terms of hours. So far, the parliamentary authorities have not decided to go down that route, but we think there are attractions in that.”

       Ultimately it is up to MPs, and not the Government, to decide the rules determining the use of outside work.

       Mr Johnson proposed new limits on MPs’ second jobs after coming under pressure over Tory sleaze in the light of the Paterson furore, which sparked a major row over standards in politics.

       When Mr Paterson - who has always denied wrongdoing - was found to have broken lobbying rules, the Government attempted to stave off his punishment by whipping Tories to delay a decision on his fate.

       The move provoked fury within the party, with Downing Street forced to backtrack on the plans less than 24 hours after pushing them through the chamber.

       In a letter to the Commons Speaker in November 2021, Mr Johnson called for a clause to be added to the MPs’ code of conduct in line with a recommendation from the ethics watchdog, stating that “any outside activity undertaken by a MP, whether remunerated or unremunerated, should be within reasonable limits and should not prevent them from fully carrying out their range of duties”.

       He also backed a ban on MPs acting as paid parliamentary advisers, which was subsequently endorsed by the Commons and written into the code.

       Mr Johnson said the changes would “ensure that MPs who are neglecting their duties to their constituents and prioritising outside interests would be investigated, and appropriately punished by the existing disciplinary authorities”.

       But in its own review two weeks later, the Commons standards committee warned that a rule imposing “reasonable limits” on other jobs would not be “practicable or enforceable”.

       The committee said it would require the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards to make “highly subjective and potentially partisan political judgments about a member’s use of time, their priorities and their performance as an MP”.

       In May last year, the standards committee advised that “no restrictions should be introduced on the time that a member can spend on outside work, or on income that they might receive from it”.

       It added: “Nor should any rule be introduced which would involve the commissioner making a judgment about whether a member is sufficiently diligent, a judgment which ought to be reserved only to a member’s constituents.”

       However, it suggested that those taking on “any formal paid employment with an outside body” should “obtain a written contract or written statement of particulars detailing their duties” and make this available to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards “on request”.

       In its response, published last autumn, the Government agreed to reject a cap on second jobs.

       A new code of conduct incorporating most of the standards committee’s recommendations – including the requirement for MPs to disclose details of their second jobs on demand – was later passed by the Commons.

       A government spokesman said: “Integrity, professionalism and transparency are core values of this government. An MP’s primary job is and must be to serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.”