THE Conservative government's controversial plan to overhaul the standards system at Westminster in order to protect one MP found guilty of lobbying looks dead in the water after opposition, media, and trade unions erupted in outrage.
Commons Leader Jacob Rees-Mogg said the vote on reviewing the disciplinary system and preventing the immediate suspension of Owen Paterson - who has now stepped down as an MP - had “created a certain amount of controversy”.
He told MPs: “It is important that standards in this House are done on a cross-party basis.
READ MORE: Nicola Sturgeon slams Boris Johnson's regime over Owen Paterson scandal
“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."
The vote passed by 250 to 232, with 13 Tories rebelling against the three-line whip - the strongest available - handed down by Boris Johnson (below).
Rees-Mogg said that, despite the victory, the lack of cross-party support made the plan unviable.
Labour, the SNP, and the LibDems had vowed to boycott any new committee, depriving the panel of any real cross-party authority.
The Tory leader of the House of Commons went on: “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.”
Paterson would normally face a suspension, a recall petition, and a potential by-election. Instead, Boris Johnson ordered his MPs to vote to bring the entire process under review, protecting Paterson’s position.
In light of the Tory government's U-turn after the successful vote, it is unclear what punishment Paterson will face.
Previously, an ethics adviser to Boris Johnson had suggested the Prime Minister failed to uphold principles on standards by blocking Paterson’s immediate suspension through an overhaul of the disciplinary system.
Lord Evans, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said the move to block former minister Paterson’s six-week ban was a “very serious and damaging moment for Parliament”.
And the former MI5 chief criticised the Tory-led review into the disciplinary process for MPs as being “deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy”.
The Government was facing allegations of “corruption” after Johnson ordered Conservatives not to back the cross-party Standards Committee’s call for Paterson’s suspension.
Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng (above) stoked further outrage by suggesting independent standards commissioner Kathryn Stone should resign after finding Paterson repeatedly lobbied ministers and officials for two companies paying him more than £100,000 per year.
Lord Evans, whose panel advises the Prime Minister on upholding ethical standards in public life, issued an extraordinary criticism of the vote held on Wednesday.
“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,” he told an Institute for Government event.
READ MORE: Cries of 'shame' erupt in Commons as MPs vote to protect Tory who broke rules
“And it cannot be right to propose that the standards system in the House of Commons should be reviewed by a select committee chaired by a member of the ruling party and with a majority of members from that same party.
“This extraordinary proposal is deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy.
“The political system in this country does not belong to one party or even to one Government, it is a common good that we have all inherited from our forebears and that we all have a responsibility to preserve and to improve.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel