Tory MPs won a vote yesterday to block the suspension of Owen Paterson from the House of Commons and to overhaul Parliament’s sleaze watchdog.
After a fierce backlash, Boris Johnson made a quick U-turn.
Below is a breakdown on what the U turn means, what MPs voted to and what is likely next.
Boris Johnson today made a dramatic U-turn on plans to overhaul the House of Commons standards system
The Government is expected bring forward a new vote on whether Owen Paterson should remain suspended from the Commons for a period of 30 days.
What has the Government done? And what is next?
The Government has performed a U-turn on its decision to block the 30-day suspension of Tory MP Owen Paterson from the House of Commons after he was found to have breached lobbying rules.
After yesterday’s outrage, the Government will propose a new vote to suspend Mr Paterson in the coming weeks.
Jacob Rees Mogg, Commons Leader confirmed the U turn this morning. He insisted that ministers still want reforms to the Commons’ standards process.
Rees-Mogg stated that any changes to the system would have to be made on a cross-party basis, but he acknowledged that this would not happen after yesterday’s vote.
He stated that there is a strong feeling among MPs regarding the need for reforming the standards process. However, there is also a strong feeling not to base it on one case or apply retroactively.
He said that the ‘linkage between the case of Paterson and the larger issue regarding standards reform needs to be broken.
The Cabinet minister said the Government will now be ‘looking to work on a cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases’ with details brought forward ‘once there have been cross-party discussions’.
The Government has essentially reneged on all the proposals made by MPs yesterday.
The handling of the row has exacerbated tensions between opposition parties, which means that the floated cross-party discussions may not be able to take root. That could see reform of the standards system kicked into the long grass.
What did MPs vote yesterday?
To block Paterson’s suspension from the House of Commons, his allies presented an amendment.
After Johnson instructed Tory MPs not to vote against it, the amendment was passed with 250 votes to232.
The amendment proposed the creation of a new commission with a Tory majority, to review the case Mr Paterson and make recommendations regarding the overhaul of current standards processes.
What would the amendment have meant for the standards rules?
The new committee would have been charged with examining whether the standards system should grant MPs ‘the exact same or similar rights that apply to those who are subject to investigations into alleged misconduct in another workplace or profession’.
This would include things such as the right to representation, examination witnesses, and right of appeal.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, Commons Leader, confirmed the U-turn as he stated that ministers still want to reform standards system
The committee would have had a broad mandate to consider any other issues it considered relevant.
Who was Paterson working as?
In August 2015, Mr. Paterson joined Randox, a consulting firm for clinical diagnostics. Randox sponsors the Grand National horse racing. This was one year after he resigned from Government as Secretary of state for Northern Ireland and Environment under David Cameron.
Since December 2016, he has held a similar position for Lynn’s Country Foods. They are a processor/distributor of meat products, including nitrite-free, since that time.
Both firms are based in Northern Ireland and between them paid him more than £112,000 a year on top of his £80,000 annual MP salary.
What is the story of what Mr. Paterson said to be doing?
Kathryn Stone, Standards Commissioner, found that he violated paragraph 11 of 2015 MPs’ Code of Conduct prohibiting ‘paid advocacy’. He made three approaches to Food Standards Agency in relation to Randox and testing antibiotics in milk in November 2016 & November 2017.
Emails to FSA read like marketing pitches for the firm, mentioning “Randox’s superior tech” in identifying problems.
He said that the technology could be used not only within the FSA, but across the entire dairy industry. That would allow the company to make large sums of cash.
The hardline Brexiteer violated the same rules by making seven appeals to the FSA for Lynn’s Country Foods, November 2017, January 2018, and July 2018, regarding a rival ‘global foods producer (who) was violating EU law by mislabelling product’.
And the same rules were breached in October 2016 and January 2017 when he made four approaches to ministers at the Department for International Development relating to Randox and blood testing technology.
Ms Stone also found out that Mr Paterson had failed to declare his interest as an paid consultant to Lynn’s Country Foods, in violation of paragraph 13 of the 2015 MPs’ code of conduct, on declarations of interests. This was done via four emails to officials of the FSA on 16/11/2016 15/11/2017 8/01/2018 and 17/01/2018.
Finally, she found that Paterson had violated paragraph 15 of the 2015 MP’s Code of Conduct on use of parliamentary facility. He used his Westminster Office on 16 occasions to meet with his paying clients, and he also sent two letters on 13 and 16 October 2016, relating his business interests.
The Commons Committee on Standards recommended what punishment?
After reviewing Ms Stone’s report, the Commons Committee on Standards, which is made up of a cross party group of MPs recommended that Mr Paterson be suspended for 30 days. This could trigger a recall petition.
What does Paterson say?
Paterson insists that he did not commit any wrongdoing and that he was acting out of genuine concerns for public safety.
Ahead of the release of the investigation last week he made an astonishing attack on Ms Stone, claiming her ‘cruel’ probe in to his activities contributed to the death of his wife, Rose, who took her own life last year.
North Shropshire MP, 65, believes that the investigation against him was biased and an absolute denial of justice.
After yesterday’s vote he said: ‘The process I was subjected to did not comply with natural justice. The commissioner or the committee did not conduct an adequate investigation.
“The Standards Commissioner has admitted to making up her mind before speaking with me or any witnesses.
“All I have ever wanted is the opportunity to present my case through a fair process. The decision taken today by Parliament means that I will now be able to exercise that right.
“After two years of hell, now I have the chance to clear my name.
“I am very grateful to the PM, Leader of the House, and my colleagues for ensuring fundamental changes to the internal parliamentary systems in justice.
“I hope that no other MP will ever be again subject to this shockingly inept process.”
Why do Paterson’s supporters believe he is being wronged?
Allies of Mr Paterson claim that standards investigation was “so amateurish it did not interview witnesses”.
They claim that he had 17 witnesses who were available to testify on his behalf, but they claimed they were never called. The Standards Committee however, pointed out that each of the 17 had supplied it with comprehensive written statements and ‘did not see what further ‘relevant information could usefully be gleaned by inviting oral evidence from the witnesses concerned’.
Supporters believe that the current standards system has flaws and should be changed to allow MPs to appeal.
Former Brexit secretary David Davis said MPs currently have ‘no effective right of appeal’ because ‘this is a standards system where one person is chief investigator and prosecutor combined’.
Tory MPs propose to replace the current standard system with a quasi-judicial system and a ‘proper” appeal system.