← Back to House of Commons Debates
Committee on Standards
03 November 2021
Lead MP
Lindsay Hoyle
Chorley
Speaker
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Standards & Ethics
Other Contributors: 39
At a Glance
Lindsay Hoyle raised concerns about committee on standards in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
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.
Andrea Leadsom
Con
South Northamptonshire
Tabled an amendment to the motion which raises concerns about the process used in the case involving Mr Owen Paterson.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham, Yardley
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.
Kevin Hollinrake
Con
Thirsk and Malton
Asked whether the oversight of the Committee on Standards and the judgment of the House serve as effective appeal processes.
Martin Docherty
SNP
West Dunbartonshire
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.
Margaret Hodge
Lab
Barking
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.
Florence Eshalomi
Lab Co-op
Vauxhall and Camberwell Green
Asked if the ban on paid advocacy since 1695 was being bent by the Government in this case.
Richard Burgon
Lab
Leeds East
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.
Steven Baker
Con
Wycombe
Warned that passing the amendment could lead to Mr Paterson facing condemnation by an appeals process.
Bill Cash
Con
Stone
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.
Sammy Wilson
DUP
East Antrim
Asked if the difference of interpretation regarding 'paid advocacy' should be open to appeal given that two different interpretations exist.
Lichfield
Pointed out that 17 individuals who wished to give oral evidence were refused, and argued for justice and fairness in the process.
Lichfield
Asked about the importance of cross-examination in natural justice cases.
Bill Wiggin
Con
North Herefordshire
Emphasised the need for reform due to staff being put in an impossible position by the current system.
Bernard Jenkin
Con
Harwich and North Essex
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.
Mike Amesbury
Lab
Weaver Vale
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.
Alistair Carmichael
Lib Dem
Orkney and Shetland
Argued that procedural reform requires consensus-building before implementation, questioning the current approach's effectiveness.
Peter Kyle
Lab
Hove and Portslade
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.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
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.
Martin Docherty
SNP
West Dunbartonshire
Asked if there will be compulsion for Members to attend the proposed Committee and other Select Committees.
Desmond Swayne
Con
New Forest West
Noted that members are required to attend Special Standing Committees for private Bills due to their quasi-judicial nature.
Neil Coyle
Lab
Bermondsey and Old Southwark
Criticised the Government's approach, citing examples of inconsistent handling of misconduct cases within the party.
Charles Walker
Con
Harwich and North Essex
Asked about the timing of appeals if an appeal panel upholds the original ruling.
Stephen Timms
Lab
East Ham
Questioned whether the interpretation of the whistleblowing exemption could effectively nullify the ban on paid advocacy.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.
Chris Elmore
Lab
Bridgend
Asked why the Leader of the House is appointing a Chair for this Select Committee instead of allowing Members to vote.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
Called for the debate to be accelerated given its importance and the limited time available.
Bristol West
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.
Peter Bottomley
Con
Worthing West
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.
Pete Wishart
SNP
Perth and Kinross-shire
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.
Martin Docherty
Labour Party
not specified constituency
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.
Yvette Cooper
Lab
Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley
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.
Simon Hoare
Con
North Dorset
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.
Jess Phillips
Lab
Birmingham Yardley
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.
Chris Bryant
Lab
Rhondda and Ogmore
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.
Hayes and Harlington
No Member of Parliament serves on this new Committee in my name, as it is viewed as corrupt.
Lindsay Hoyle
Speaker
Chorley
We are not going to go through all the Members in the debate.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.