Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Chamberlain voices her shock at death threats against the Commissioner and emphasises that the role is apolitical. She notes that the Government's actions have rightly been condemned, citing opinions from Sir John Major and Lord Evans, and highlights the public concern over the legitimacy of changing rules for political gain.

Moran supports Chamberlain's view that the debate has distracted from important issues like COP26, which is a critical moment for climate action. She argues that such distractions harm Parliament’s reputation.

Dhesi criticises the Prime Minister as a tinpot dictator and questions the Government's motives in changing the rules, suggesting it undermines public trust and integrity.

Baron agrees with Chamberlain on the impropriety of trying to reform the system at this point, advocating for cross-party support and waiting for findings from the Committee on Standards before making further decisions.

Daby argues that the Government's actions last week have been damaging to public trust and integrity, describing it as a 'ridiculous game'.

Hobhouse reiterates Chamberlain’s point about accountability to constituents, arguing that MPs should not feel invincible within the corridors of Westminster.

Sheerman acknowledges past behaviour by all parties as good and honourable but admits this recent event has damaged the House's reputation. He urges for a balanced view, emphasising that such behavior is not typical.

Farron supports Chamberlain’s stance, noting the importance of grace and forgiveness but also insisting on acknowledging when one side behaves especially badly. He criticises the Government for undermining trust in democracy.

Cooper suggests putting the House of Lords Appointments Commission on a statutory footing to prevent future overruling of recommendations, citing an example with ministerial interests advice ignored by the Prime Minister.

Bell clarifies that he received no threats when breaking the whip last week and confirms his support for Chamberlain’s position on standards reform.

Asked the Minister to acknowledge that the use of Parliament for private interests will not be tolerated, referencing UK Parliament Week and Mr Paterson's conduct.

Called on the Government to table a motion clearing up the uncertainty about Mr Paterson’s behaviour and suggested creating a Committee for review but noted its lack of support, proposing immediate action before recess.

Emphasised that despite sympathy for Mr Paterson's situation, the issue remains unresolved, questioning why the Prime Minister is not addressing it directly and instead defending police commissioners.

Acknowledged the Government’s apology but highlighted their consistent support for him, even when voting against them.

Asked for clarification on the status of the amended motion from last week and inquired about the review process for standards rules.

Proposed a Bill to ban multiple jobs for MPs, arguing that chasing corporate cash undermines public trust and suggested it was an effort by MPs to increase their earnings beyond £82,000.

Questioned whether the Government now agrees with the Standards Committee’s report on Mr Paterson's conduct or if they were merely apologising for procedural issues.

The Prime Minister's defence of corruption undermines trust in democracy. The former Member for North Shropshire took money to lobby ministers, which is against the rules. The PM should have told him this was wrong but instead undermined the Commissioner for Standards. This shows a pattern where institutions meant to enforce integrity are attacked when they challenge the PM. Labour calls for stronger standards, including banning paid directorships and consultancy roles for MPs, and ending the 'revolving door' between ministerial office and private sector jobs.

The Leader of the Opposition should confirm that future exploration of rules on House business will not be whipped, as this undermines democracy. The current case shows how whipping can force MPs to vote against their conscience.

Agrees with Keir Starmer that House business should never be whipped, and asks whether the Labour leader whipped his members last week regarding the issue of standards.

Congratulates the hon. Member for North East Fife on requesting this debate, acknowledges cross-party support, calls for a decision from the Committee on Standards before resignation, suggests an open approach to reforms and recommends face-to-face declarations of outside earnings with the registrar.

Critiques the Government for introducing a motion that was seen as an abuse of power. Expresses outrage at the public's reaction, which is unprecedented in 20 years of political experience. Calls out the Leader of the House for failing to defend the Government's actions properly and criticises the Government's arrogance. Suggests the need for an independent investigation into donations to the Conservative Party. Emphasises the importance of a full apology from the Prime Minister, removal of the kangaroo court committee policy, acceptance of independent investigations by the Committee on Standards, and restoration to the status quo before last Wednesday’s Division Bell rang. Requests that the Metropolitan police investigate cash for honours allegations under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925.

Costa expressed deep concerns about the process by which the Committee on Standards operates, arguing that it is in conflict with natural justice due to the dual role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as both investigator and adviser. He highlighted inconsistencies between how bullying or sexual harassment claims are adjudicated compared to paid consultancies, suggesting a more consistent judicial panel system similar to independent expert panels.

Grant raised a point of order questioning the propriety of a Select Committee member making public statements about private proceedings of their committee.

Chris Bryant argued that voters care about standards in public life and MPs have a duty to protect Parliament's reputation. He highlighted the importance of independence in disciplinary processes, criticised lobbying of Standards Committee members, and defended due process as fair and balanced.

Bill Cash referred Chris Bryant to appendix 2 of Owen Paterson's submission, which outlines the criteria for an Investigatory Panel. He argued that the current case met these criteria due to significant contested issues of fact.

Bob Seely asked Chris Bryant about specific areas needing improvement in the disciplinary process, acknowledging the impact of Bryant's previous speech on this matter.

Reiterated the call for transparency in the reform process, suggesting that whatever reforms are made should be transparent and proceed as swiftly as possible. Emphasised the importance of letting the Committee produce its recommendations before considering them further.

Congratulated the chair of the Committee on Standards, emphasising that this debate is about maintaining the integrity of the House and the rules for MPs. Noted that 17 witness statements were provided in a previous case but no additional insight was gained from hearing witnesses verbally. Mentioned concerns over the complexity of current rules and codes and advocated for separating roles of commissioner and legal counsel to ensure clear adherence to legal processes.

Asked whether it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know what the outcome would be without an investigatory panel with a legal assessor deciding on natural justice compliance.

Highlighted the importance of lay involvement in the judicial process for maintaining public faith. Stressed that if the Committee does not protect Members' reputations adequately, public trust could diminish leading to lower election turnouts.

It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of recent actions, which have eroded public trust in politics and weakened democracy. My constituents facing fire and rehire, struggling on universal credit, and waiting for social care are deeply affected by these events. The substantial majority won at the last general election does not excuse ongoing issues with corruption or double standards. We should prioritise making corruption a criminal offence and banning MPs from having second jobs unless necessary for professional accreditations.

I regret that we are here today, but it is important to support the Standards Committee report regarding Mr Owen Paterson. The process followed by the committee should be supported and improved upon in a cross-party manner. As a former Government Chief Whip, I believe that decisions made by the team captain need to be well thought through and soundly based, with apologies offered if mistakes are made. It is essential to uphold high standards and avoid actions that could take us back to the dark times of previous scandals.

I find it appalling what happened last week in this place regarding Owen Paterson and the attack on the commissioner for standards. The behaviour displayed is not acceptable, and I do not want to see such actions continue. This kind of behaviour is not allowed in the Scottish Parliament, and we should consider bringing our practices into line with those that are criminal offences elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Mole Valley, Aaron Bell, discussed the importance of friendship within Parliament and its role in supporting MPs during difficult times. He emphasised that loyalty to friends is important but sometimes advising friends out of a problematic situation can be more helpful. Mr Bell highlighted the challenges faced by new Conservative intake members following last week's vote and praised his colleague Jill Mortimer for her bravery in voting against the whip despite being relatively new to Parliament.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Liz Saville-Roberts, criticised the Government's approach to ethics in governance, citing examples of unethical behaviour including cash-for-contracts and bullying by Ministers. She proposed major reforms such as independent oversight of the ministerial code, banning MPs from having second jobs except for public service roles, forcing Ministers to correct misleading statements, and replacing the House of Lords with an elected Chamber.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West raised a point of order regarding whether it would be in order for the Prime Minister to attend the debate or make a statement apologising, as advised by the former Government Chief Whip.

The former Member for North Shropshire, Owen Paterson, served his constituency for 24 years and held significant offices in Government. His resignation due to personal conduct issues is a tragedy, both personally and professionally. The case highlights the need for natural justice and proper legal processes within Standing Orders Nos. 149 and 150. There should be provisions for an independent appeals process and more legal input into the investigation procedure.

Responds to David Jones by clarifying that written evidence from witnesses was considered, similar to many courts in the UK. Emphasises that Paterson's case is still open and unresolved despite his resignation.

Condemns the Conservative government for attempting to cover up corruption within Parliament. Highlights cases of MPs receiving funds from firms involved in contracts with questionable integrity, suggesting a need for a full investigation into cronyism and conflicts of interest.

Requests an intervention but does not provide a substantial position or argument beyond the request to speak.

Critiques the amendment passed last week, arguing it sought to link individual case determination with broader disciplinary reform proposals without cross-party support. He regrets that discussions have been derailed by noise from other aspects of the amendment, advocating for an independent body to determine serious misconduct cases and a clear appeal mechanism.

Expresses concern over the decision to whip House business, seeing it as damaging the authority of the Prime Minister and undermining public confidence in Parliament. Advocates for substantive reform rather than tinkering with procedures, suggesting a cap on second jobs or outside interests for Members.

Mr Cash questioned why the Committee did not convene and require the commissioner to hold an investigative panel, emphasising the importance of natural justice in parliamentary procedures. He highlighted that expert witness statements supported the former Member's actions but were not followed, arguing it was a failure of natural justice.

Ms Chamberlain thanked Members for their presence and contributions, stating her intention in applying for the debate was to make an initial assessment of the consequences beyond the case. She reiterated support for the current independent standards commissioner and noted issues with various standards and codes needing alignment and streamlining. She also mentioned a review of the code of conduct and suggested that actions by the Government were a clear Executive overreach, requiring the Prime Minister to address serious questions.

Mr Whittingdale raised a point of order regarding the status of a new Committee he was supposed to chair. He expressed uncertainty about proceeding without cross-party support and noted that the motion establishing this Committee is still in place.