I think that some people can’t see the wood for the trees. Granted it was an error of judgement , but in the timing only. The basic problem is the workings of this particular committee and it needs putting right… When a decision is made about an MPs guilt without him being consulted and without witness statements being read then something is seriously wrong.
I have no idea whether he is guilty of not but the system that deals with wayward MPs needs to be put right. As for being independent, how can a committee made up of MPs judging MPs be independent.
There will be one happy MP this morning, Claudia Webbe who has effectively been pushed off the front pages.
Apparently, this is the current composition of the Committee:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/membership/
Committee on Standards
Commons Select Committee
The Committee on Standards cannot take on complaints about Members of Parliament. Such complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. It is chaired by Chris Bryant MP. You can follow the Committee on Twitter @HoCStandards
Membership
14 current committee members
Chris Bryant MP Labour Rhondda Chair Commons
Dr Arun Midha Lay Member
Mrs Jane Burgess Lay Member
Mr Paul Thorogood Lay Member
Mrs Rita Dexter Lay Member
Mrs Tammy Banks Lay Member
Dr Michael Maguire Lay Member
Mehmuda Mian Lay Member
Andy Carter MP Conservative Warrington South
Alberto Costa MP Conservative South Leicestershire
Allan Dorans MP Scottish National Party Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock
Mark Fletcher MP Conservative Bolsover
Yvonne Fovargue MP Labour Makerfield
Sir Bernard Jenkin MP Conservative
Lay members are members of the Committee on Standards who are not MPs but members of the public, chosen to provide an independent element in the House of Commons’ standards system.
Lay members were first added to the Committee in 2012, initially with three lay members and 11 elected members; this was changed to equal numbers of each in 2016.
The lay members play a full role in the Committee’s work, involved in both disciplinary cases and inquiries related to broader standards matters.
1 Like
@Rainmaker , l agree mostly Rainmaker, but can you explain why it is
necessary for there to be a lobby system at all ?
How does it add to the efficiency of government?
All it seems to do is to increase the likelihood of corruption occuring, as
seems to be the case !!
Surely there is nothing wrong with the the businesses concerned presenting
their own case before a parliamentary committee on their own behalf ??
Why should it be necessary for the business to employ the MP?
Donkeyman! 
Apologies for forgetting the Lay members, However the points I made still stand. The system is flawed, if members of the Committee will not take up evidence from the accused or the witnesses how can they possibly arrive at a fair decision and as I previously mentioned The biggest error was made by the government trying to change the rules at this time.
Had they done the right thing and tackled it a few months from now they might have got a great deal more cooperation
No Donkeyman I cant explain it and like you I think its unnecessary but I don’t think it makes a lot of difference to Parliament what I think. 
There seems to be plenty of evidence here:
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/publications/
[quote=“Rainmaker, post:29, topic:86344, full:true”]
I think that some people can’t see the wood for the trees. Granted it was an error of judgement , but in the timing only. The basic problem is the workings of this particular committee and it needs putting right… When a decision is made about an MPs guilt without him being consulted and without witness statements being read then something is seriously wrong.
I have no idea whether he is guilty of not but the system that deals with wayward MPs needs to be put right. As for being independent, how can a committee made up of MPs judging MPs be independent.
There will be one happy MP this morning, Claudia Webbe who has effectively been pushed off the front pages.
[/quote]
By design, I shouldn’t wonder.
No sign of her doing the honourable thing and stepping down from her post, I suppose? She should be recalled and a by-election called.
Hi, this is an automated message from your friendly Over50sChat bot 
Please note this thread has been tagged with our strictly-on-topic-please tag - this means the poster of the thread would prefer that you stay on-topic when posting in this thread.
If you’d like to start a related discussion you can do so easily by clicking on the time-stamp in the top right of any post and then clicking on + New Thread - this will then let you post a new thread and place a link to each from the other, thus making them ‘linked threads’ 
Thank you for your understanding and for helping make the Over50sChat community the best it can be!
It definitely seems to me to be flawed and little more than a kangaroo court if the accused and witnesses (for both sides) are not allowed to be heard.
1 Like
Doesn’t matter how long the report is If they created it without looking at the evidence. Patterson’s complaint was that he sent them these witness statements but they were never read. He also said they never read his statements. Kathry Stone has also admitted that she had made up her mind he was guilty before he even provided the the statements.
The report I’ve linked is Paterson’s appearance and interview before the committee.
This report contains written evidence, both from and to Mr. Paterson:
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7646/documents/79908/default/
It’s 333 pages long.
This is the final report:
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7644/documents/79907/default/
House of Commons
Committee on Standards
Mr Owen Paterson
Third Report of Session 2021–22
It’s 173 pages long, containing hundreds of statements from Mr Paterson.
Let’s cut to the chase Omah. This is not about whether he did or didn’t say this or that, or whether even be is guilty of not. It’s about a system that is unfit for purpose. A system that is presently being abused. The seed of this debacle was planted by the Guardian and used as a stick to beat the government. Now the left an the left wing media and Labour take up the cry with sleaze despite the fact that many Labour MPs have gone the same route.
When MPs voted for this system they took the line of least resistance and look where it got them. I would be interested to here your own personal opinion instead of all these endless quotes. Let’s have a look at the man. It may save much scaffolding on the net.
O
“You might think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.”
1 Like
Apologies yet again, this time for the last line of my last post. The word scaffolding should have read searching. Damn this predictive text. My fault for not checking. 
The Liberal Democrat-led debate will look again at how the system needs to be reformed. The party is proposing an independent inquiry and calling for stricter punishments for MPs who break the rules.
Chair of the Commons Select Committee on Standards, Labour MP Chris Bryant, told BBC Breakfast he wants to see a “proper and robust system of standards”.
“The majority of us went into politics to make the world better,” he said. “We have to decide it was inappropriate behaviour. I believe in Parliament and the ability to change things.”
Monday’s debate will last for up to three hours.
Liberal Democrat chief whip Wendy Chamberlain said: “We need to make sure those with a vested interest in tearing up Parliament’s anti-sleaze rules don’t have the power to do so. Time and again government ministers have refused to properly investigate allegations of sleaze, failed to declare relevant meetings and donations, and tried to rig the system to cover their own backs.”
BIB That’s BJ and cronies to a T … 
1 Like
Are you not concerned about a system that is able to convict people of wrong doing without taking up evidence, a process which has no appeal? The reason that Labour and The Lib Dems want the system to stay because judging from its track record Labour have received more lenient treatment than the Conservatives. the Committee’s own chairman Chris Bryant has received very lenient treatment from them in the past.
The current Leader of the Labour party tried to manipulate Parliament to try to prevent us leaving the EU. Before opening his mouth he needs to remember his own transgressions.
I preferred the scaffolding … give most of them enough rope etc etc 
2 Likes
The lobbying system doesnt need reforming,
It needs discontinuing !!
It serves no purpose in parliament’s functioning ??
Donkeyman! 
1 Like