PM accused of ‘colossal misjudgement’ in Owen Paterson row

1.2k

View
comments

Boris Johnson executed an extraordinary U-turn on his decision to block punishment for ally Owen Paterson today after he faced an overwhelming outcry. 

Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg announced the government has dropped plans for a retrospective overhaul of sleaze rules after a huge backlash at the ‘politically-motivated’ decision.

The move means that a motion on suspending Mr Paterson for 30 days for lobbying rule breaches – as was recommended by the cross-party standards committee – is now set to be brought before the House again.

The PM had smashed convention by ordering his party to oppose the conclusions of the standards watchdog. 

But the amendment ‘pausing’ the process and calling for a reform of the sleaze rules still only narrowly passed last night, as he was hit with a major revolt – including ministerial aide Angela Richardson who was then fired. 

The block had sparked complete chaos, leaving the existing system for regulating MPs’ behaviour in tatters and Opposition parties vowing to boycott the government’s plans to agree a new one.

Mr Paterson, Tory MP for North Shropshire, was found to have committed an ‘egregious’ breach of standards rules by directly advocating for two companies from which he pocketed some £500,000. He continues to deny any wrongdoing, saying he would do it all again, and has called for standards commissioner Kathryn Stone to resign – something that was endorsed by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng just hours before the volte face. 

Addressing MPs, Mr Rees-Mogg said today: ‘It is important that standards in this House are done on a cross-party basis.

‘The House voted very clearly yesterday to show that it is worried about the process of handling these complaints and that we would like an appeals system, but the change would need to be on a cross-party basis and that is clearly not the case.

‘While there is a very strong feeling on both sides of the House that there is a need for an appeals process, there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case or apply retrospectively.

‘I fear last night’s debate conflated an individual case with the general concern. This link needs to be broken.

‘Therefore I and others will be looking to work on a cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases.

‘We will bring forward more detailed proposals once there have been cross-party discussions.’

One government source told MailOnline of Mr Paterson: ‘He’s going to end up being suspended.’ 

A senior Tory said: ‘There will be a lot of angry MPs who gave way and voted for the Government. Marched up to the top of the hill… ‘

Standards committee chair Chris Bryant, a Labour MP, had warned that retrospectively changing the system when an ally was under threat was ‘what they do in Russia’.

The chair of the Committee for Standards in Public Life, former MI5 head Lord Evans, also waded in this morning saying the decisions were ‘politically motivated’.  

Mr Johnson himself has previously clashed bitterly with Ms Stone, including over a £15,000 ‘freebie’ to Mustique with now-wife Carrie. 

It was unclear what would have happened to the eight politicians – including Cabinet minister Therese Coffey – who are currently being probed for breaches.

Three of those under investigation voted for the amendment to put the sleaze system on hold. 

Parliamentary standards commissioner Kathryn Stone has indicated she has no intention of resigning – despite Mr Paterson calling for her to step down and Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng saying this morning that it is ‘difficult to see’ her continuing. 

In a further escalation just hours before the U-turn, Mr Kwarteng described Mr Paterson as a ‘victim’ 

Allies of Mr Paterson brought forward an amendment last night that blocked the suspension while his case is reviewed. 

It was backed by a majority of 18, but around 50 Tories rebelled.

Labour MPs could be heard shouting ‘shame and ‘what have you done to this place’ as the result was announced, but Mr Paterson doubled-down and insisted there was ‘no question’ he would do the same thing again.

He then told the Telegraph the commissioner and members of the Standards Committee should consider their position.

‘Sadly they have not done a good job and come up with a rotten report which is full of inaccuracies… [they] all have to go,’ he said.

Lord Evans told an event for the Institute for Government think tank: ‘Yesterday’s vote on the report of the Commons Standards Committee was a very serious and damaging moment for Parliament and for public standards in this country… 

‘It cannot be right that MPs should reject after one short debate the conclusions of the independent Commissioner for Standards and the House of Commons Committee on Standards, conclusions that arose from an investigation lasting two years.

‘It cannot be right to propose an overhaul of the entire regulatory system in order to postpone or prevent sanctions in a very serious case of paid lobbying by an MP.’ 

The peer suggested ‘complacency’ had set in again after the expenses scandal.

‘Events of yesterday confirm our view that we are at the point of the cycle where it’s time to look again and to reassess,’ Lord Evans said.

‘It’s time to re-establish our commitment to credible, independent regulation of the ethical standards of public office holders.’ 

There was fury among Tories over the decision to impose a three-line whip on an issue on which the Government has not traditionally interfered.

Defence Committee chair Tobias Ellwood, who abstained, told Sky News that there was an argument to be had about whether the system needed reform.

But he suggested it was a day of ‘shame’ for Parliament and many MPs and ministers had been ‘troubled’ by the government’s stance.

‘Parliament’s reputation has now been damaged,’ he said. ‘We must learn from this… it does look like we are looking after our own.’

Mr Ellwood pointed out that with the current system now undermined the House has been left with ‘nothing there’ in terms of policing behaviour.  

Hartlepool MP Jill Mortimer, who was elected in May, told fellow Red Wall MPs: ‘This was a colossal misjudgement.’

Fellow Tory Kevin Hollinrake, who voted against the motion, said MPs ‘cannot ever give the impression that the powerful are above the law’. He added: ‘It looks like a moving of the goalposts and powerful people are above the law.’

Father of the House, Tory MP Sir Peter Bottomley ‘It’s a dark day for any faith in the integrity of our democracy.’

Conservative MP Nigel Mills, who rebelled ‘We get a result that we don’t like and then we seek to change the rules of the game so we can get a result we do like, and I don’t think that’s a good look.’

Tory MP Sir Gary Streeter, who abstained ‘This was a colossal misjudgment, it should not have been whipped.’ Hartlepool Tory MP Jill Mortimer ‘This is not consistent with the highest standards in public life, which it is essential we uphold if MPs are to be respected and enjoy public trust.’

Tory MP Stephen Hammond, who abstained ‘If the public believe that we are marking our own homework, our reputation individually and collectively will be tarnished.’

In a round of interviews this morning, Mr Kwarteng pointed out that he personally had not voted – as he is in Glasgow for the COP26 summit.

‘I wasn’t there but I read about it,’ he told Sky News.  

But Mr Kwarteng said the situation was the ‘express will of Parliament’.

‘It’s not about the rights and wrongs of what Owen Paterson said or did or how he was paid,’ he said.  

‘I think the process is something that we want to look at, the fact is he had no right of appeal, and we feel that in terms of Parliament people should have a right of appeal as they do in most employments throughout this country.’

He said a right of appeal would be something all parties could rely on.

Mr Kwarteng was asked why the Government had not sought to change the rules prior to Mr Paterson’s case.

‘I mean, you’ll appreciate I’m sure that we’ve been talking about this for years,’ he said.

‘We’ve been talking about holding MPs to account, having the highest standards in public life, ways in which we can improve those standards and make people more accountable.’ 

Mr Kwarteng said it was ‘difficult to see’ what Ms Stone could do from here. 

‘I think it’s difficult to see what the future of the commissioner is, given the fact that we’re reviewing the process, and we’re overturning and trying to reform this whole process, but it’s up to the commissioner to decide her position,’ he said.

Pushed on what he meant by ‘decide her position’, Mr Kwarteng said: ‘It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing, but I’m not saying she should resign.’

Tory peer Lord Hayward said one Tory MP who voted with the Government on Wednesday had later sent him a text message using the word ‘shambles’.

The pollster told Times Radio: ‘I’ve yet to find a clear explanation to how they’ve got themselves in this mess, and they have gotten themselves in a mess.’

He said he had ‘no doubt’ it would have an impact on Conservative voters, but he said: ‘I think it’ll probably be short-term, but it will have an impact on Boris Johnson’s rating, because this is the sort of thing which a number of voters actually have a suspicion about him, and the way he behaves, in what they would view as a somewhat cavalier manner in relation to natural justice.’

The chair of the Labour Party said the Government’s decision to ‘rip up the rulebook’ after the Conservatives tabled a motion rewrite the Commons disciplinary process is ‘corruption, plain and simple’ and Labour will have ‘no part in it’.

Anneliese Dodds told Times Radio: ‘We are completely against this attempt to effectively stitch up the standards system.

‘The Conservatives should be seeking to sort it out instead. We believe in strong parliamentary standards and a clean Parliament. We have always been clear on that.

‘We’re not going to have any part, or play any part in going backwards.

‘This is extremely damaging to public trust in Parliament and Labour instead wants to be building up that trust, not knocking it down.’

It comes as Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer wrote in the Guardian: ‘I am sick of people skirting around calling this out for what it is: corruption.’ 

Mr Paterson admitted last night he continues to work with Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods – the two firms at the heart of the scandal.

He is said to have made three approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Randox and testing for antibiotics in milk in November 2016 and November 2017.

The emails are said to have read like marketing pitched on behalf of the firm, mentioning ‘Randox’s superior technology’ in helping identify problems.  

Quizzed over his actions, the MP told Sky News: ‘No, I wouldn’t hesitate tomorrow. Absolutely.

‘When we found out about the milk I realised it was absolute dynamite. First of all it was very obvious that lives were at risk, and secondly, if it had been mishandled and had been leaked to keen media agents like you, we could have absolutely blown the UK dairy industry apart.

‘So I had absolutely no hesitation whatever in calling a meeting very rapidly. And if you look at the witness statements, they are grateful that I did do that.

‘As a result of those efforts, British milk is now safer. And we did it without disrupting the dairy industry. So I wouldn’t hesitate to do it again tomorrow, absolutely no question.’

Meanwhile it emerged on Wednesday night that he had earnt more than £500,000 from the two companies, including a sum of £112,000 which he takes home every year – £100,000 of which is from clinical diagnostics company Randox.

The other firm, Lynn’s Country Foods, has paid him £2,000 a month – for four hours’ work every other month – since January 2017.

Some 248 Tory MPs voted in favour of the amendment, along with ex-Tory and now independent MP Rob Roberts –  who was recently suspended himself for sexually harassing a male staff member – and the DUP’s Sammy Wilson. 

Some 13 Tory MPs voted against the amendment despite the Government instructing them to vote for it.  They were joined by 168 Labour MPs and 32 SNP MPs in opposing the move while 98 Tory MPs and 28 Labour did not record a vote.

While some of them will have been paired under voting rules coving MPs unable to attend Parliament, it shows the level of unrest in Tory ranks at the campaign. 

Mr Johnson himself has previously been in hot water with the committee – and Ms Stone. 

In 2018, before he became Prime Minister, he made a ‘full and unreserved’ apology to MPs for failing to declare more than £50,000 in income and registering nine payments after the required 28-day deadline.

Ms Stone said the breaches were ‘neither inadvertent nor minor’. 

In July, Mr Johnson was dramatically cleared by the committee of breaking Commons rules over a £15,000 Mustique ‘freebie’ with Carrie. 

The cross-party standards committee found the PM had made an ‘accurate and complete’ declaration about the holiday in December 2019, saying it was a donation from Carphone Warehouse founder David Ross even though the couple did not stay in his villa.

However, the committee – chaired by Labour MP Chris Bryant – had to overrule Ms Stone. She had concluded that Mr Johnson did breach the Code of Conduct during a 15-month wrangle after initially failing to provide a full explanation, slamming him for ‘not showing the accountability required of those in public life’. 

Former justice secretary Robert Buckland acknowledged it would have been better to seek reform to the standards system without it happening against the backdrop of the Paterson case.

‘I can understand the strength of feeling today but these difficult moments do allow us a chance to make a meaningful reform which I think will be better in the long run,’ he told ITV’s Peston.

Mr Buckland, a former member of the Standards Committee, added: ‘In a perfect world we should be doing this without events like the one of today. But this is how Parliament sometimes works, it’s imperfect.’ 

The amendment will create a new committee with a Tory majority which will make recommendations for a shake-up of the current standards system. It is due to report by February 3 next year. 

But Labour, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats have vowed to boycott the new body, meaning it risks being seen as Tories ‘marking their own homework’.

Following the Commons vote, Mr Paterson  – who voted for the amendment himself – said: ‘After two years of hell, I now have the opportunity to clear my name.’ 

Mr Paterson’s register of interests says he earns £12,000 a year from Lynn’s as a ‘consultant’ to the sausage processing and distribution company.

Since August 2015, he has worked as a consultant to Randox Laboratories, for which he initially earned £4,166 a month for eight hours’ work. This rose to £8,333 a month and his hours doubled to 16 a month in April 2017, the Committee on Standards said.

Its report, which relates to Mr Paterson’s conduct between October 2016 and February 2020, said his remuneration from Randox and Lynn’s amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary. As a backbench MP, Mr Paterson earns a basic annual salary of £81,932.

His work for Randox and Lynn’s means he has earned more than £500,000 since 2015 on top of his salary as an MP. Mr Paterson told the inquiry he did not have written contracts with the two firms, the report said.

Mr Johnson had signalled at PMQs at lunchtime that the Government intended to support the amendment as he was grilled by Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner. 

He had questioned whether Mr Paterson had the ‘opportunity to make representations’ during the investigation as the premier backed calls for reform of the system.

Ms Rayner hit back and said that blocking the suspension of the former minister would show it is ‘one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us’.

Mr Paterson has angrily disputed the findings of the standards report, claiming the investigation was unfairly conducted. 

‘The commissioner in her report that was adopted… said the witnesses weren’t needed because their evidence they gave wasn’t relevant to the inquiry.

‘And that is an interesting view to come to, because other people might say: ‘How do you know whether it was relevant to the inquiry until you’ve taken their evidence and have found out the precise context of how things were done?’

As part of Dame Andrea’s proposals, MPs on the Conservative-majority committee led by former culture secretary John Whittingdale will examine whether the standards system should mirror that of investigations of misconduct in other workplaces, including the right of representation, the examination of witnesses, and the right of appeal.

The committee will comprise of Mr Whittingdale and eight other MPs – four Tories, three Labour and one SNP. 

Mr Whittingdale will have the casting vote in the event of a tie. 

The Leadsom amendment was vehemently opposed by Labour, with the party having repeatedly warned against trying to overhaul the system.

Thangam Debbonaire, shadow Commons leader, had said: ‘Let’s not forget that the cross-party standards committee, including three Tory MPs, endorsed the commissioner’s 30-day sanction for a breach of the rule around paid advocacy.’

She had said that ‘the Tories want to jettison the system that has served us well and which has been a vital part of rebuilding public trust after the dark days of Tory sleaze this Government seems determined to return to’. 

But Mr Rees-Mogg said there was ‘precedence’ for amending a motion to suspend an MP, saying it was last done in 1947. 

Sir Lindsay’s spokeswoman did not deny a report in The Times that suggested he believed blocking the suspension would bring the House into disrepute. 

Ms Stone’s investigation found Mr Paterson repeatedly lobbied on behalf of two companies for which he was acting as a paid consultant – Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods.

But the MP struck back, saying the investigation finding he breached rules on paid advocacy by MPs was a ‘biased process and not fair’.

Committee on Standards chairman Chris Bryant urged MPs to ‘read the report in full, with a fair and open mind’ and warned against voting it down in what would be an unprecedented move in the committee’s roughly 36-year history.

Disgraced MP Owen Paterson has earnt more than £500,000 from firms at the centre of lobbying scandal 

By Harriet Line, Chief Political Correspondent for the Daily Mail 

A defiant Owen Paterson insisted last night he would ‘do it again’ as it emerged that he had earnt more than £500,000 from two companies at the centre of the lobbying row.

The ex-Cabinet minister still earns £112,000 a year from the firms – £100,000 of which is from clinical diagnostics company Randox.

The other firm, Lynn’s Country Foods, has paid him £2,000 a month – for four hours’ work every other month – since January 2017.

Mr Paterson was found to have repeatedly lobbied on behalf of the firms but last night he defiantly stood by his actions, saying that by raising concerns about carcinogenic products in milk and ham he had ‘saved lives’. He told the BBC: ‘If it happened again this morning, I would do it again.’

He added on Sky he would have ‘no question’ doing the same again. ‘No, I wouldn’t hesitate tomorrow. Absolutely,’ he said.

And in a statement, he said: ‘The process I was subjected to did not comply with natural justice. No proper investigation was undertaken by the commissioner or committee.

‘After two years of hell, I now have the opportunity to clear my name. I hope that no other MP will ever again be subject to this shockingly inadequate process.’

Mr Paterson’s register of interests says he earns £12,000 a year from Lynn’s as a ‘consultant’ to the sausage processing and distribution company.

Since August 2015, he has worked as a consultant to Randox Laboratories, for which he initially earned £4,166 a month for eight hours’ work. This rose to £8,333 a month and his hours doubled to 16 a month in April 2017, the Committee on Standards said.

Its report, which relates to Mr Paterson’s conduct between October 2016 and February 2020, said his remuneration from Randox and Lynn’s amounted to nearly three times his annual parliamentary salary. As a backbench MP, Mr Paterson earns a basic annual salary of £81,932.

His work for Randox and Lynn’s means he has earned more than £500,000 since 2015 on top of his salary as an MP. Mr Paterson told the inquiry he did not have written contracts with the two firms, the report said.

The Standards Commissioner said she expressed ‘surprise’ to him and would have expected him to have written contracts. She added it was not clear ‘what duties were expected’ of him after the initial phase of his work for Randox or his work for Lynn’s.