Owen Paterson was found to have misused his position to benefit two companies he worked for. But he says he got unfair treatment and his allies will seek to change the rules and scrap his punishment in Commons votes later on Wednesday. The government has ordered all Tory MPs to back the suggested reforms.
During Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Johnson also argued that a right of appeal must be introduced for cases such as Mr Paterson’s to ensure “natural justice”.
MPs are due to vote later on whether to endorse a recommendation from the Commons Standards Committee that Mr Paterson be suspended for 30 days - which would trigger a recall petition, potentially leading to a by-election in his North Shropshire constituency. Mr Paterson’s supporters will try to overturn the recommendation.
They are also calling for a new committee to be set up to consider changes to the process for investigating MPs. If the Commons backs this - which is likely to happen, given the government’s large majority - Mr Paterson’s proposed suspension would be put on hold.
At the moment, the system for examining breaches of the rules for MPs is a complicated one, with careers dependent on its verdicts. So it’s no surprise parliamentarians are deeply concerned about its workings. But today’s vote entangles an individual case with concerns about the working of the system - and entanglement may spell real trouble for Parliament.
Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner said the Conservatives were “wallowing in sleaze” and accused them of changing the rules to suit their own ends. Ms Rayner said:
“It’s one rule for everybody else and one rule for the Conservatives. When they break the rules, they just remake the rules. In no other profession in our country could someone be found guilty by an independent process and just have their mates vote them back into the job.”
Labour, the SNP and Lib Dems voted against the plans, along with 13 Conservative MPs, but it was carried by 18 votes after a heated Commons debate.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson backed the proposed shake-up of the rules and ordered his MPs to vote for MP Andrea Leadsom’s motion, ensuring it was carried.
However, thirteen Conservatives voted against the amendment, while 98 had no vote recorded - which could either be a deliberate abstention or they could have just not been able to vote.
Boris made it clear in PMs questions that in was not about Patterson being treated lenietly and that if he was guilty he should be suspended. It is about the fact that Patterson was not interviewed about the alleged offence. None of the seventeen witnesses he produced were spoken to, in addition the decision was reached before the committee knew all the facts, they had already decided to suspend him. Also there is no appeal process. Comparing many of its decisions, it is biased against Conservatives and is made up mainly of Remainers. No wonder Labour are whining and whinging. It needed changing.
Obviously, not all Conservatives agree with BJ - despite his please for support, only 248 of 361 Conservative MPs voted “Aye”, passing the motion with a very slim majority of 16.
Well some on this site seem to have already decided that he is guilty before he has been allowed to defend himself , which is exactly what the committee did. Are we beginning to Behave like Russia where the people who don’t agree with the President are jailed. At least try to find other opinions other than the BBC’s an the Guardian.
In a time long gone, the unpleasant smell at the houses of Parliament came from the river & not the conduct of the less than honourable members. Regardless of the rights & wrongs of this case, to misquote Shakespeare, there is something very rotten in Westminster.
Even the worst criminal is allowed to present his defence. The whole essence of the complaint has been lost in the furore about what he did rather than how he was treated and he was treated unfairly.
There is no appeal process. This committee is made up of people who are naturally biased and who themselves have trangressed.
On Wednesday, No 10 backed a shake-up of the standards watchdog and blocked the suspension of one of its own former ministers, Owen Paterson. But it led to accusations of sleaze, with Labour saying the Tories just wanted to “let off one of their own”.
Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg has now confirmed the changes will not go ahead without cross-party support. He told the Commons there was a “strong feeling” that any change to the standards process “should not be based on a single case”, and Wednesday’s vote had “conflated” the two. “This link needs to be broken” added Mr Rees-Mogg. He said the government would come back to MPs with more detailed proposals to change the system after it had held discussions with the other parties.
It is also understood another vote will take place on whether Mr Paterson should be suspended.
Those figures mean two thirds of Conservatives did. not a bad split in a party where individuality and independence is more prevalent than the opposition. Of course in addition most of the Labour MPs who have been up before the Committee were let of with a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again
Common sense prevails. If the opposition boycott system then there is no point in continuing with it. It doesn’t alter the fact that the current system is unfair and biased
Mr Paterson said he now wanted a life “outside the cruel world of politics”.
In a statement, the 65-year-old, who has represented North Shropshire since 1997, said the past two years had been “an indescribable nightmare for my family and me”.
He said his integrity had been “repeatedly and publicly questioned”, and that he was “totally innocent” of breaking lobbying rules.
Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has called on the prime minister to apologise to the whole country for the “chaotic” past 24 hours, and for his “grubby attempt to cover up for the misdemeanour of his friend”.
