British law votes to prevent immediate suspension of Tories on suspicion of lobbying breach

Conservatives, who were found to have committed “terrible” violations of lobbying rules, avoided an immediate suspension after parliamentarians voted for a government-sponsored proposal to review disciplinary action.

In an unprecedented move, they were six weeks from Owen Paterson’s parliament after being ruled that Owen Paterson repeatedly lobbyed ministers and officials of two companies paying more than £ 100,000 a year. We have chosen not to support the Cross-Party Standards Committee’s call for a ban.

Instead, the House of Commons upheld the Tories amendment after Prime Minister Boris Johnson questioned whether Patterson’s investigation was fair.

A North Shropshire lawmaker who angryly denied his findings could have faced a recall procedure that could have led to a by-election if the recommended six-week suspension was approved.

When the House of Representatives cast 250 to 232, a majority of 18 votes to approve the amendment, opposition lawmakers shouted “shame” and “what did you do here?”

Labor Deputy Leader Angela Rayner accused the Tories of being “corely corrupt” after “absolute shame.”

She said the party “will not participate in this fake process or corrupt committee at all,” and that the SNP will also boycott the overhaul.

In addition to considering Patterson’s case, the amendment calls on a conservative majority committee led by former cultural secretary John Whittingdale to consider a standards system.

In a report approved by the Standards Commission, Standards Parliamentarian Catherine Stone recommended Patterson to ban the Commons for 30 days.

According to Stone’s research, he repeatedly lobbied on behalf of two paid consultants, Landox and Linds Country Foods.

Patterson claimed that the investigation was unjustified and that the method under which the investigation was conducted played a “major role” in the suicide of his wife Rose last year.

The prime minister, who voted for the amendment, said the paid lobbying activities at Commons were “wrong” and that “those convicted of the crime should apologize and pay the necessary fines.”

“But that’s not the issue in this case, nor this vote in front of us,” he added to the MP.

“The question of this case, which involves a serious family tragedy, is whether the members of this house had a fair opportunity to represent in this case, and as a matter of natural justice, our procedure in this house. Is it possible to make a proper appeal. “

After a positive coronavirus test, Reiner acted for Labor leader Sir Keir Starmer in a question from the Prime Minister, accusing the conservatives of being “upset”, which was “for them.” One rule and one rule for the rest of the people. ” We. “

There was considerable rebellion from the Conservatives refusing to comply with orders in favor of the bid, and the longest legislator, Sir Peter Bottomley, suggested that overhauling the system was inappropriate.

“I chose the system I’m currently using,” he said. “If we want to think about changing it, we do it the right way, rather than thinking about it as it is now.”

The sector list showed that 13 Tories voted against the lead-sum amendment, but the other 98 did not. It was stated that about 246 Conservatives voted.

Downing Street previously called on the MP to seek “agreement between the parties on a new appeal process,” arguing that the right to appeal was “sacred in providing justice and natural justice.”

Despite the amendment’s nomination of Patterson in particular, a spokesman for the Prime Minister said, “This is not about a single case, we have no view of the decision and are trying to overturn it. I haven’t. “

She claimed that the Patterson case had “crystallized” the demand for reform, saying it had been going on for “long years” among the MPs, but did not say why the changes had not been introduced before.

“Parliamentarians never mark their homework,” a spokeswoman added.

Daniel Bruce, Chief Executive Officer of Transparency International UK, an anti-corruption activist, said:

“This greatly undermines our confidence in democracy and the rule of law.”

Dave Penman, FDA Secretary-General on behalf of senior civil servants, said:

“A malicious and organized campaign of personal attacks on the Parliamentary Commission for Standards (civil servants who cannot respond) is completely unacceptable.”

Chris Bryant, chairman of the Standards Commission, warned that if Redsum’s amendment wins, “the public will think we will be the parliament that has authorized cash for questions.”

Since World War II, there has never been a successful amendment to reduce the suspension of parliamentarians, but since the creation of the modern standards system, the House of Representatives has never voted against disciplinary action. bottom.

Sam blue