We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
FORMER NORTHERN IRELAND Secretary Owen Paterson resigned as an MP this week after British Prime Minsiter Boris Johnson decided to hold a second vote over whether to suspend him for an alleged breach of Westminster lobbying rules.
After Tory MPs reacted to a report that said Paterson had breached lobbying rules by voting to amend standards procedures instead of suspending the MP for 30 days, the British public and political establishment was in uproar.
Some Tory MPs told the House of Commons their offices had been vandalised overnight after the vote on Wednesday. Others later said they hadn’t read the report that investigated Paterson’s lobbying role before voting.
Accusations of ‘sleaze’ came in thick and fast: the Times of London reported that Boris Johnson had underestimated the level of outrage at the Commons vote.
Let’s take a look at this controversy from the start.
In case you’ve missed all the twists and turns that led up to a government u-turn and to Owen Paterson’s resignation as an MP, here’s 6 minutes on a busy 24 hours. Produced by Harriet Ridley and Jack Kilbride. https://t.co/RjbD8irHGN pic.twitter.com/m4ToqxvaOi
— Ros Atkins (@BBCRosAtkins) November 4, 2021
How did this all begin?
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards – who investigates allegations of MPs breaching the UK’s parliamentary code of conduct – found that Owen Paterson had lobbied on behalf of two companies which had paid him more than £100,000 a year.
Those companies are Randox Health, which is a major supplier of Covid-19 PCR tests in the UK, and Belfast-based agri-food firm Lynn’s Country Foods.
In serious breaches such as this, the Commissioner refers cases to the Commons Standards Committee – a crossbench group of MPs and members of the public – who can then decide on a sanction.
The Commons Standards Committee said his actions were an “egregious” breach of the rules on paid advocacy by MPs and recommended that he should be suspended for 30 sitting days, or six weeks.
But Paterson rejected Commissioner Kathryn Stone’s findings, accusing her of making up her mind before she had even spoken to him, and making the serious accusation that the investigation had been a contributing factor in the suicide of his wife, Rose, in 2020.
“This is a biased process and not fair,” he said.
Why did the case end up in the Commons?
Although the committee recommends the sanction, MPs have final approval.
The current chairman of the committee, Labour MP Chris Bryant, warned against voting the committee’s report – and therefore the sanction – down in what would be an unprecedented move in the committee’s 36-year history.
But Leader of the House Jacob Rees-Mogg had said there was “precedence” for amending a motion to suspend an MP, saying it was last done in 1947.
What’s the argument against suspension?
Allies of Paterson tabled an amendment to the motion which would have approved his suspension to say that instead, a new committee – chaired by former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale – should be set up to overhaul the whole standards process, but also review Mr Paterson’s case specifically.
Tory MPs were whipped to vote for the amendment, which was put down by Dame Andrea Leadsom, but it still only passed with a slim majority of 18 as many Conservatives abstained.
The subsequent vote on the amended motion then also passed.
What did Boris Johnson say?
Prime Minister Boris Johnson was insistent that the rule changes were not about Paterson’s individual case – despite the amendment specifically including his name and being put forward on a motion concerning him.
He said there were concerns about the right of appeal in the process, and that he wanted to ensure high standards were maintained.
The former Attorney General and former Tory MP Dominic Grieve also told the BBC that “it cannot escape notice that the Prime Minister is currently the subject of an investigation for failure to declare his interest by that same Commissioner.”
This is in relation to a Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigation into Johnson for failing to declare a free holiday in a Marbella villa in October, which was funded by the family of Tory peer Zac Goldsmith.
Boris Johnson registered the nearly week-long stay in October in the register of ministerial interests, but Labour’s deputy leader Angela Rayner said it had not been listed in the register of members’ interests.
In April this year, Labour MP Margaret Hodge reported Johnson to the Commissioner over the initial redecoration costs of his Downing Street flat, but it has not yet been announced whether the Commissioner will be looking into the allegations.
What went wrong?
Pressure began to mount on the British Government on Wednesday night, as the move was seen as a ploy to protect one of their own.
Labour launched attacks focussing on Tory sleaze, and even Conservative MPs said they thought there had been a serious misstep in how the situation had been handled.
The headlines were not kind to the vote: ‘Tories rip up Britain’s anti-sleaze rules to save guilty MP’ the i reported, while the Mail ran with ‘Shameless MPs sink back into sleaze’.
😎Good morning to you from the Govt that lied to the Queen to prorogue Parliament, was willing to break international law in a “limited & specific” way, forced PM’s own standards chief to quit by overruling him, breached lockdown rules while expecting others to follow them... https://t.co/GtoiBr3sQH
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) November 4, 2021
Less than 24 hours after the vote, Rees-Mogg announced a u-turn, and No 10 said there would be a fresh vote on Paterson’s suspension and then they would separately look into introducing appeal mechanisms.
Tory MP Angela Richardson said on the night of the vote that she had abstained on the vote as a matter of principle, and was “aware that my job was at risk”, talking about her time as a parliamentary pivate secretary in the past tense.
Just over 16 hours later, she was reinstated in that role.
What happened to Paterson?
According to the BBC, Paterson had not been told about the reversal by No 10 and found out when he received a telephone call from BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg while he was in the supermarket.
Shortly afterwards, he released a statement announcing he would be resigning.
I maintain that I am totally innocent of what I have been accused of and I acted at all times in the interests of public health and safety.
The Times of London has suggested that a Sky News interview with Paterson held on the eve of the House of Commons vote may have also had some influence on the decision to hold a repeat vote on Paterson’s suspension.
Paterson told Sky News that he “wouldn’t hesitate” to act in the same manner “tomorrow” in relation to the lobbying rules, which was said to have infuriated Johnson.
Tonight I asked Owen Paterson why he thinks two companies pay him over £100k a year, as he says he’d do it all againhttps://t.co/nC7XNDfeTS
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) November 3, 2021
Transcript: pic.twitter.com/RZuJqAOZuu
What is the fallout?
If Paterson and No 10 had accepted his suspension, he may have faced a by-election through a recall petition but with a 22,949 majority, it is likely he would have won it.
Now, Downing Street has endured a damaging news cycle, allegations of sleaze, and will now have to fight for North Shropshire with a new candidate.
Why has this happened?
Downing Street has said this was always about ensuring the standards process were robust, but Boris Johnson’s former chief advisor Dominic Cummings has alleged the PM has it out for the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner due to his own record.
Johnson has been admonished four times by the Commissioner – three of those during Commissioner Stone’s tenure – and a decision on whether she will launch an investigation into the initial financing of the redecoration of his Downing Street flat is due.
Many of the Tory MPs who signed the initial amendment, or who voted for it, had also fallen foul of the Commissioner.
useful Times guide to the 19 Tory MPs who voted to overhaul the standards system - and who just happen to have been reprimanded by the standards commissioner pic.twitter.com/JCql5bz7pW
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) November 5, 2021
And the Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng told Sky News: “I think it’s difficult to see what the future of the Commissioner is, given the fact that we’re reviewing the process, and we’re overturning and trying to reform this whole process, but it’s up to the Commissioner to decide her position.”
But the PM’s official spokesman said: “The Prime Minister’s focus is on, as he set out yesterday, securing a proper appeal for this process, as there are other walks of life.”
He added: “The Prime Minister fully recognises the strength of feeling in the House and that there is not cross-party support for the changes that were seeking to be made, and therefore understands that it’s right to change the approach and to decouple those two issues.”
With reporting from Gráinne Ní Aodha.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
It’s like a dictatorship without due process and no justice
@Joe Johnson: why were these witnesses not called during the House proceedings?
The case has been made in the House and the Senate has the right to review the case as presented.
@milton friedman: eh “they; Trumps lot and he blocked them there as well , make no mistake a dictator in the making
@milton friedman: Because Trump BLOCKED them.
You know this.
Stop being disingenuous!
@Joe Johnson: ha what are you on about, the republicans were not allowed to call joe/hunter Biden as witnesses,,swings both ways
@milton friedman: They were called… but they either refused to stand witness or were blocked by the White House from doing so. Documentation requests were also refused by the White House.
@RAYZ88: How would either of the Bidens be witness to the phone calls and actions by Trump and his administration? This is an investigation in to abuse of power and obstruction of congress by Trump. It’s not an investigation in to the Bidens.
@RAYZ88: And did Joe/Hunter Biden have evidence relating to Donald Trump using the power of the office to force a foreign country to interfere in the 2020 election? OR ARE YOU DEFLECTING?
@PeterC: Are you reading my mind!!!?
@Declan Crowley: ah so these are the White House staff the wish to call as witnesses. Ok fair enough Trump did block them.
@Tricia G: you’ll find that the republicans tried to call witnesses in the first hearings and were blocked by Shiff. Now the democrats are calling new witnesses(which weren’t called in the first one) and now the republicans are blocking them.
It’s all a game of one up man ship. Both sides know the end result it’s who can cause the other side more damage. If I was American I’d be looking for both houses(and Trump) to be fired and new people in.
@Cormac Flanagan: You are LYING. They were called. They refused.
There were many subpoenas issued by the House that were NOT honoured.
Both for documents AND witnesses.
And the witnesses the Republicans wanted to call the Bidens.
What the Republicans want you to believe it those that are refusing to testify under oath are telling the truth and those that testified under oath are lying.
If they’re telling the truth why won’t they testify under oath?
You are attempting to deflect from the Republican’s blatant cover-up by suggesting the Dems are at fault.
That’s nonsense.
@Tricia G: they actively blocked the whistleblower(the person who started all this) from testifying. Now they may have there reason but to block the person making the allegation makes a joke of the process.
They tried to get him with the Russiagate and it failed. This is just another(poor) attempt to get him. Which is worse. Trump has admitted in speeches to far worse and they haven’t gone after him(yet).
What will happen is they’ll lose in the senate. They’ll wait till November. If Trump gets in and they get a majority in both houses they’ll try again. As I said it’s all a game.
@Tricia G: you cant reason with some. Nor do these same people bother with facts, only what they want to believe or twist. Sort of like brexiteers.
@RAYZ88: They are impeachment hearings of Donald Trump! What does Hunter Biden know about Donald Trumps conspiracy to withhold congressional and senate approved aid to Ukraine? Nothing because he isn’t involved thus can’t be a witness as he has nothing to testify to.
@Cormac Flanagan: Glad you brought up the whistleblower. Democrats argued, rightly in my opinion, that the whistleblower had a statutory right to anonymity. Notwithstanding that the whistleblower merely exposed the breach which was then clarified by a number of those actually involved (what would the whistleblower add?), you only have to look at the damage and false attacks done to Maurice McCabe for rightly lifting the lid on the corruption within our own Garda Siochana. If whistleblowers didn’t have the right to anonymity, how do you adequately protect them?
@Tricia G: Great minds!
@Cormac Flanagan: because there are laws protecting whistleblowers and the whistle blower followed the correct channels given trumps vindictiveness to anyone who speaks out. The substance of the complaints have been confirmed anyway by the state department witness that were called during the hearings.
@PeterC: and I agree he should have been protected. But a quick google search will get you the name of the whistleblower, rightly or wrongly he will now have to give evidence.
@Cormac Flanagan: After the release of the phone transcript there was no requirement to interview the whistleblower.
Using the argument of the GOP that individual overheard the phone call, but the White House actually released the transcript which is primary source info.
@Jonathan Morgan: well if that’s the argument then most of the witnesses were irrelevant because most just gave evidence of the phone call, who was there etc. If he had so little evidence to give and he’s name was out why not allow him be called. Then we don’t have the situation there in now with the republican acting like babies saying well you blocked out requests so we’re blocking yours.
The Dems are doing the right thing, for the wrong reasons and wrong way. All this is about the primaries in November. There all getting their sound bites in. And for those in the red/blue states they have to follow party lines or not get back in
@Joe Johnson:
Trump and his legal reps were denied due process in the House, don’t you recall? if it’s good enough for the Dems then it’s good enough for the Republicans
@Cormac Flanagan: Right then, if that’s your logic, the whistleblower is also just another to give evidence of a phone call he heard but was not actually party to. Which brings us back to original argument – Why not let those who were actually on the call or played a specific part in the contents of the call, testify during the impeachment?
@Raven: “Denied due process”? That’s a fairly blanket statement. Care to elaborate?
@Paul Furey: you can’t reason with TDS victims.
@PeterC: I’m saying by blocking the whistleblower from giving evidence even tho as you said his evidence is not that important it gives the Reps the opportunity(which there taking) to block other witnesses.
Also why bring in new witnesses now. If there evidence is so important why weren’t they called in the first hearing. And if there evidence is not important(like the whistleblower) why call them.
@PeterC:
Didn’t the Dems interview their “witnesses” in the basement of capitol hill, Trump and his lawyers were denied access to cross examine the very same witnesses. Clear enough?
@Raven: that wasn’t what happened – and that wasn’t the ‘trial’ – try to keep up
@milton friedman: they were called, they just refused to come
@Dave Hammond:
I’m sure Trumps legal team have a better grasp of what happened than you with your third hand, hear say, he said, she said , CNN fairytales.
And where did I mention trial? – try keep up. :)
This is a joke
This was always going to happen. Everybody knew this. The democrats are wasting time and money.
@Marcia Craine: Attempting to show that a President isn’t above the law by circumventing Congress and obstructing justice? It would be a constitutional failure if they didn’t impeach him. Not allowing key witnesses by the Republicans is a two fingers to the US people, constitution and rule of law.
@Marcia Craine: BS! They’re doing their jobs!
This is such a rubbish argument. Don’t do your job because the people you’re depending on to do theirs are refusing.
Democratic voters are also watching. The polls make it clear that the population want to see witnesses. They’re pretty damning!
@Tom Cullen: correct. Abuse of power is an impeachable offence and the list of impeachable offences still grows.
An absolute farce, the Senate should hold their heads in shame, a dictator in the making, and they are letting it happen, all because they want to get voted back in and keep their jobs , utterly biased, and guaranteed he will be found not guilty , even tho the dogs in the street know he is guilty…
@Declan Crowley: “dictator in the making”… “want to get voted back in” Consistent stuff.
Title should read; Democrats Hoax Impeachment Proceedings Get Underway.
@BOH®: No, it should not.
@Tricia G: oh wait, I’m wrong. Just like the Russian Collusion, and the Stormy Daniels thing, and all the other lies. So, the most harassed man on the planet should get impeached over a phone call he made to another guy, even when that other guy says nothing wrong happened. The harassed man even releases the transcript to show he’s nothing to hide. God, it all makes perfect sense now. Impeach Trump. WOOOOOOO!!
It would be too exonerating
There isn’t a snowball in hell’s chance that “Impartial Justice” will be served in the US Senate during this trial!
The eye balls of politicians are not connected to their brains!
have your say