Committee on Standards

Set out the procedure to be followed during the debate. Emphasised not attacking individuals and maintaining good temper, moderation, respectfulness, and tolerance in language. Mentioned that Dame Andrea Leadsom's amendment will be moved formally at the end of the debate.

Tabled an amendment to the motion which raises concerns about the process used in the case involving Mr Owen Paterson.

Questioned if Jacob Rees-Mogg would be making these changes if it were a Labour MP. Also questioned whether there has been an effective appeal process in this case.

Asked whether the oversight of the Committee on Standards and the judgment of the House serve as effective appeal processes.

Questioned if the Leader of the House could differentiate between how the decision was treated for those who had allegations upheld against them compared to Mr Paterson.

Stressed the importance of taking decisions that have been agreed upon unanimously by the Committee and endorsed by the House, highlighting the seriousness of the allegation against Mr Paterson.

Asked if the ban on paid advocacy since 1695 was being bent by the Government in this case.

Suggested that the attempt to rewrite rules is dodgy and would further damage trust in democracy, citing polls showing public belief in corruption within the Government.

Warned that passing the amendment could lead to Mr Paterson facing condemnation by an appeals process.

Emphasised the importance of applying criteria for fairness in contested cases and highlighted that an investigatory panel was not applied in this case despite it being available under Standing Order No. 150.

Asked if the difference of interpretation regarding 'paid advocacy' should be open to appeal given that two different interpretations exist.

Pointed out that 17 individuals who wished to give oral evidence were refused, and argued for justice and fairness in the process.

Asked about the importance of cross-examination in natural justice cases.

Emphasised the need for reform due to staff being put in an impossible position by the current system.

Clarified that all standards cases come before the House, and questioned the necessity of a new mechanism proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

Stressed that any Member found involved in paid advocacy to the tune of £100,000 per year should face the same scrutiny regardless of political affiliation.

Argued that procedural reform requires consensus-building before implementation, questioning the current approach's effectiveness.

Critiqued the Leader of the House for being detached from reality, noting that most MPs do not need to be paid £100,000 to advocate for their constituents' interests.

Challenged the Leader of the House on why a new Select Committee would be better than an old one that had already reached a unanimous conclusion against paid advocacy.

Asked if there will be compulsion for Members to attend the proposed Committee and other Select Committees.

Noted that members are required to attend Special Standing Committees for private Bills due to their quasi-judicial nature.

Criticised the Government's approach, citing examples of inconsistent handling of misconduct cases within the party.

Asked about the timing of appeals if an appeal panel upholds the original ruling.

Questioned whether the interpretation of the whistleblowing exemption could effectively nullify the ban on paid advocacy.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

Asked why the Leader of the House is appointing a Chair for this Select Committee instead of allowing Members to vote.

Called for the debate to be accelerated given its importance and the limited time available.

Debbonaire criticises the amendment as a backdoor attempt to change rules mid-case, questioning the integrity of the process and arguing that if Members do not like results they should debate changes openly. She emphasises the importance of adhering to ethical standards and maintaining public trust in parliamentary procedures.

Bottomley expresses dissatisfaction with the need for this debate but would support the Government's motion unamended. He acknowledges the thoroughness of the report and notes that while he understands Paterson's situation, he feels the latter could have taken a more conciliatory approach to the findings. Bottomley is concerned about the potential misuse of historical recommendations from 2003 without proper consideration in intervening years.

He expresses concern over the Government's efforts to change rules retrospectively, criticising it as a shoddy return to Tory sleaze. He highlights that the Standards Committee imposed maximum sanctions on the right hon. Member for North Shropshire for breaching multiple rules and argues against having a committee with a Conservative Chair and majority decide on this matter.

Mr Docherty intervenes to express agreement that the Government's approach is undermining democratic pillars, including neutralising court rulings of the Supreme Court, defying the European convention on human rights, reforming the Electoral Commission, and now attempting to change rules regarding standards breaches.

Ms Cooper questioned why the amendment was being proposed on this specific day given that similar reforms could have been suggested earlier. She argued that it undermines the integrity of previous decisions by the Committee on Standards.

Mr Hoare supported Mrs Leadsom's proposal for a more judicial and forensic process but asked if this would mean the House should still vote on these reports or if it should be left to the Standards Committee.

Mr Bell expressed concern that proposing reforms now might seem like moving goalposts, making it hard for cross-party support. He suggested that any reform must come from all parts of the House to maintain integrity.

Ms Phillips shared concerns about victims of sexual harassment or assault who have gone through the independent complaints process, worrying that today's debate could discourage others from coming forward with similar issues.

Mrs Harman expressed regret at having to speak in this debate but emphasised the importance of upholding high standards. She argued for an independent measure and called for changes to be proposed on a cross-party basis, opposing the amendment and supporting adherence to existing rules.

The amendment is a retrograde step as it would create two rival Select Committees on standards. It would delay the process and compromise the independence of the parliamentary commissioner's investigation.

No Member of Parliament serves on this new Committee in my name, as it is viewed as corrupt.

We are not going to go through all the Members in the debate.