Owen Paterson: Anger as Tory MP avoids suspension in rule shake-up

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It is Owen Paterson’s argument that the Investigating Committee got its facts wrong and he was not, in fact, given the ability to correct them. He says he has not been listened to. Given that this point has been made, don’t you think that there should be a pause to consider whether there is a need to establish an appeal right?

Chris Bryant, who is the chair of the committee, has said they did indeed give him a chance to correct them

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...IS-BRYANT.html

Today the House will consider a report from my committee on the conduct of Owen Paterson, the former cabinet minister and Tory MP for North Shropshire.

We gave him every chance to put his case to us, in writing and in person. We read and published all his witness statements. He had a fair hearing.

As does the report itself
https://committees.parliament.uk/com...n-paterson-mp/

This last year must have been very distressing for him and we have taken these circumstances fully into account in considering Mr Paterson’s conduct during the period of the investigation”, and recorded that it had “striven to ensure that Mr Paterson has had every opportunity to represent himself as fully as possible before the Committee, in person and in writing. We have extended deadlines at his request and we have accepted his request to be accompanied by his legal advisers and to make a formal opening statement to us”.

Mr Paterson made a number of arguments and allegations about the process followed in this case. The Committee addressed each of Mr Paterson’s arguments in detail in the report and set out its reasons for rejecting them.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Old Boy, your sense of humour never lets you down.

You’d be the first to complain about the unfairness of it all if the government took away the right of appeal from employees who were subject to disciplinary action. How is this any different?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’d be the first to complain about the unfairness of it all if the government took away the right of appeal from employees who were subject to disciplinary action. How is this any different?

Because - and this has been pointed out several times - if it was such an issue why didn’t the Tories deal with this matter a long time ago?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by BenMcr

Chris Bryant, who is the chair of the committee, has said they did indeed give him a chance to correct them

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...IS-BRYANT.html


As does the report itself
https://committees.parliament.uk/com...n-paterson-mp/

The committee believes it listened to him and took everything into account. Paterson says otherwise. Should the committee itself have their decision reviewed?

I have heard many an appeal in my time where the panel coming to a decision was utterly convinced they had got it right only to be confounded by the actual evidence.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Should the committee itself have their decision reviewed?

This system has been in place for decades. Parliament, including Owen Paterson himself, have had plenty of previous opportunity to review and add additional appeals processes if they wanted to do so. They didn't.

If they now want to do so, that is their right, but it shouldn't be retrospective for an individual case.

---------- Post added at 11:06 ---------- Previous post was at 11:02 ----------

And personally I don't think that the investigated should really be setting the rules for the investigators

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-b1951420.html

A group of 22 Conservative MPs who voted for the government’s botched overhaul of parliament’s disciplinary process have been investigated by the conduct watchdog.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You’d be the first to complain about the unfairness of it all if the government took away the right of appeal from employees who were subject to disciplinary action. How is this any different?

No right of appeal for anyone subject to disciplinary action is being taken away here.

The key issue here is the move to change the rules was to be retrospective and showed the Government to be out of touch.

You've backed the wrong horse Old Boy, your fellow Wokingham forum member is on the money here.

So Matt Hancock, Health Secretary and the MP for Newmarket (horse-racing town) gives Dido Harding (Director of The Jockey Club) £37bn to create the (failed) Test & Trace System and Dido Harding contracts (without going to tender) £500 million worth of work with Randox, sponsor of Grand National and the company who paid Owen Paterson £500 per hour for four hours "work" per week, and whose wife was Chair of Aintree racecourse.

All these actions were judged by the Cabinet Office anti-corruption Czar John Penrose, the husband of Dido Harding, who doesn’t think there is a problem.

Pure coincidence, I’m sure…

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So Matt Hancock, Health Secretary and the MP for Newmarket (horse-racing town) gives Dido Harding (Director of The Jockey Club) £37bn to create the (failed) Test & Trace System and Dido Harding contracts (without going to tender) £500 million worth of work with Randox, sponsor of Grand National and the company who paid Owen Paterson £500 per hour for four hours "work" per week, and whose wife was Chair of Aintree racecourse.

All these actions were judged by the Cabinet Office anti-corruption Czar John Penrose, the husband of Dido Harding, who doesn’t think there is a problem.

Pure coincidence, I’m sure…

Paranoia, Hugh.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I have heard many an appeal in my time where the panel coming to a decision was utterly convinced they had got it right only to be confounded by the actual evidence.

So I assume you'd be against people making a decision without looking at any of the evidence?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-boris-johnson

He [Zahawi] admitted to not reading the standards committee’s report into Paterson’s conduct before voting in favour of overhauling the system.

He admitted on BBC Breakfast to not reading Stone’s report into Paterson, and appeared to take on trust his colleague’s claims of innocence. “Owen says that much of it is contested, right?” he said. Referring to supportive witness statements published in the report, Zahawi added: “I think something like 14 people have sent statements [saying] that it is contested.”

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

So Matt Hancock, Health Secretary and the MP for Newmarket (horse-racing town) gives Dido Harding (Director of The Jockey Club) £37bn to create the (failed) Test & Trace System and Dido Harding contracts (without going to tender) £500 million worth of work with Randox, sponsor of Grand National and the company who paid Owen Paterson £500 per hour for four hours "work" per week, and whose wife was Chair of Aintree racecourse.

All these actions were judged by the Cabinet Office anti-corruption Czar John Penrose, the husband of Dido Harding, who doesn’t think there is a problem.

Pure coincidence, I’m sure…

About 2 weeks before the Paterson brokered government contract to Randox was announced, Randox moved their operation into a tax haven.

More coincidence?

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

It's a lovely theory but one that bears little resemblance to constitutional reality.

For example, Zac Goldsmith gets kicked out from his Richmond Park constituency via the ballot box. What happens next? Johnson gives him a peerage and retains him as a Minister. Goldsmith happens to provide Johnson with free holidays at his £25k-a-night family house in Spain.

So Goldsmith stays in government to become yet another unelected official we cannot evict via the ballot box.

Johnson will probably say it wasn't a holiday, he was just house sitting for a family friend…

Johnson’s view on Parliamentary Standards*



*having been investigated three times in the last three years (more than any other MP in the same time period), and with a potential fourth investigation in the very near future…

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

No right of appeal for anyone subject to disciplinary action is being taken away here.

The key issue here is the move to change the rules was to be retrospective and showed the Government to be out of touch.

You've backed the wrong horse Old Boy, your fellow Wokingham forum member is on the money here.

You are right - no right of appeal is being taken away - because none exists.

I agree that appeal rights should have been put in place before now, but that is not the point. Paterson argued this in his particular case.

If an employee complained about such an injustice and the employer did nothing about it, the employment tribunal would find against the employer.

The trouble is, this is so party political, no-one can see beyond their own prejudices.

[jfman]

Newer Tory MPs furious at No 10 order to back Owen Paterson

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-owen-paterson

At least we can put to bed the notion that this didn’t come from the top.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:34 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The trouble is, this is so party political, no-one can see beyond their own prejudices.

The irony.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

You are right - no right of appeal is being taken away - because none exists.

I agree that appeal rights should have been put in place before now, but that is not the point. Paterson argued this in his particular case.

If an employee complained about such an injustice and the employer did nothing about it, the employment tribunal would find against the employer.

The trouble is, this is so party political, no-one can see beyond their own prejudices.

The only people who made it party political was the Government who tried to make retrospective legislation to let one of their own off.

You surely don't need me to tell how you how dangerous such a precedent that would have set?

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by jfman

I think the fact it was such an obviously bad idea - condemned almost universally on this forum except the usual one or two who downplay it - yet Ministers went out on television to stand up for it only underlines the fact they genuinely and bizarrely believed they could have got away with it playing the Brexit card.

You are totally correct. This government got into power playing the Brexit card and they think that because of this, they are entitled to do anything they wish. Rule following, honesty, integrity are entirely optional.

Dishonesty comes from the top:



If you cannot see this then either you are not paying attention or you agree with the direction they are taking this country.

The ones I feel sorry for are the honest, old-school Conservative voters. Imagine holding your nose and voting for this shower. Conflicted is an understatement!