Cable Forum - View Single Post - Owen Paterson: Anger as Tory MP avoids suspension in rule shake-up

**Hugh** · 08-11-2021, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I suggest you take another look at the title of this thread. It is specifically about the Paterson case. So the deflections I have been referring to certainly are off-topic.

I am giving credit to the government for being conciliatory about this but I don’t accept they did anything wrong. They did what they did for the best of reasons and to see justice done and failed. But they did not attempt to ‘let him off the hook’ as far as I can see. Delay the suspension until an appeals mechanism was established, yes, but there is nothing to suggest that an appeal would come to a different conclusion. This was just about a fair system of justice, and it was right to suggest that Paterson was given this right of appeal given the particular issues he raised.

Well, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office speaking at the Dispatch Box in the HoC today disagrees with you…

Quote:

Mr Barclay told MPs: "I would like first and foremost to express my regret, and that of my ministerial colleagues, over the mistake made last week."
He said there had been concerns about the investigations system but said that had been "conflated" with Mr Paterson's case.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-59213255

---------- Post added at 22:22 ---------- Previous post was at 22:11 ----------

Good article about this in today’s Times, from a Conservative MP.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...site-lzct55zd5

Quote:

Yesterday’s vote was different. As MPs we are elected by our 650 constituencies to defend their liberties. As members of parliament we enjoy privileges so that we can challenge the institutions of government on their behalf.

In return for those privileges we are expected to abide by the code of conduct and ensure that we register all our outside interests with the Parliamentary Commissioner who has the authority to investigate breaches of the code.

This isn’t a judicial process or a matter of law. It is a system of self regulation. The Parliamentary Commissioner will refer matters in the first instance to the committee on standards who will make a recommendation which is then considered by the whole house.

This process is enshrined in the code of conduct and in standing orders of the house. We are expected to abide by it in both our behaviour and in how we judge the behaviour of our fellow MPs

The principle is that judgment is exercised by the member’s peers, not by government. It is the job of the house to judge whether a breach has occurred as described by the commissioner and to resolve an appropriate penalty or otherwise. It is based on the principle that we are all honourable members and we all have an interest in maintaining the respect for parliament.

Such “house business” has traditionally been unwhipped. Whipping should be only for the management of government business. It reflects badly that it was used in this context, however well intentioned and whatever the party considers its duty of care.

It is entirely understandable that colleagues did not wish to vote for the penalties that were proposed for Owen Paterson. There is every sympathy for him. Sympathy I share. But I also respect the judgment of my colleagues on the standards committee who concurred that there was clear evidence that the ban on paid advocacy had been breached.

The vote totally undermined the deliberations of a committee of the house appointed for the purpose. That is totally regrettable and unfair on the colleagues who acted in good faith.