Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

UK politics: Tory vote to protect Owen Paterson ‘an absolute disgrace’, says Labour – as it happened

Owen Paterson watches on in the Commons as MPs debate whether to suspend him.
Owen Paterson watches on in the Commons as MPs debate whether to suspend him. Photograph: House of Commons

Afternoon summary

From the Sun’s Kate Ferguson

Starmer claims Tories will pay electoral price for their 'corruption'

In an article for the Guardian, Sir Keir Starmer says that what happened today amounted to corruption, and that Boris Johnson is responsible.

I am sick of people skirting around calling this out for what it is: corruption. Paterson was receiving money from a private company to ask questions on its behalf. Roberts was found to have made repeated and unwanted sexual advances toward a young staffer. Both of them should be gone – neither are fit to serve as MPs. Their continued presence in the Tory party is scandalous. It will further undermine public faith in politics at a time when we should be trying to restore decency and honesty.

But the rot starts at the top. We have a prime minister whose name is synonymous with sleaze, dodgy deals and hypocrisy. This is the man who allows his ministers to breach with impunity the codes that govern public life; who thinks it should be one rule for him and his chums, another for everyone else. With his every action he signals to his MPs: do what you like. There are no consequences.

He also claims that the Conservatives will pay an electoral price for conduct like this.

Last week, the prime minister was pontificating on why the Roman empire collapsed. He notably failed to mention that one of the main factors was that the people grew tired of the arrogance and corruption of their rulers. More than a decade ago, I led the prosecution of MPs over their expenses. I was struck then by the hubris of those who assumed they could never be caught and how quickly it caused public anger to escalate. I am reminded of that again today, as Tory MPs enrich themselves while putting up taxes for working people already facing spiralling energy bills and prices in the shops.

Starmer’s article is here.

Owen Paterson claims he now has opportunity to clear his name

Owen Paterson has issued a statement saying he now has the opportunity to clear his name. Here it is in full.

The process I was subjected to did not comply with natural justice.

No proper investigation was undertaken by the commissioner or committee.

The standards commissioner has admitted making up her mind before speaking to me or any witnesses.

All I have ever asked is to have the opportunity to make my case through a fair process.

The decision today in parliament means that I will now have that opportunity.

After two years of hell, I now have the opportunity to clear my name.

I am extremely grateful to the PM, the leader of the house and my colleagues for ensuring that fundamental changes will be made to internal parliamentary systems of justice.

I hope that no other MP will ever again be subject to this shockingly inadequate process.

According to Henry Dyer from Insider, 22 of the Conservative MPs who voted for an overhaul of the parliamentary disciplinary process have been investigated by the parliamentary commissioner for standards, and 19 of them have had complaints against them upheld.

Robert Largan, Conservative MP for High Peak, says if he had been in the Commons today, he would have defied the whip and voted against the Andrea Leadsom amendment.

Labour will boycott sleaze commission, says Starmer

Keir Starmer says Labour will boycott the commission set up to overhaul the parliamentary sleaze system, my colleague Heather Stewart reports. Starmer said:

Instead of trying to sort things out, we have a government that wants to stitch things up. Their plan is to permanently weaken the structures that hold MPs to high standards. They’ve appointed their own man to oversee the process – a Tory MP who not long ago was the prime minister’s wife’s boss – and gifted themselves a majority on a committee to set the new rules.

It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. The Labour party won’t have anything to do with this complete and utter sham process.

Heather’s full story is here.

Kathryn Stone is not going to resign from her post as parliamentary commissioner for standards, despite the Commons voting to say there are “potential defects in the standards system” and not accepting her findings on Owen Paterson. It was not quite a vote of no confidence in her, but it was close.

This is from Sky’s Jon Craig.

The FDA, the union representing senior civil servants, has described the vote this afternoon as a retrograde step. Dave Penman, its general secretary, said:

It is clear that members of parliament are more concerned about protecting one of their own rather than following their code of conduct and upholding standards.

The vicious and orchestrated campaign of personal attacks against the parliamentary commissioner for standards - a public servant who cannot answer back - is completely unacceptable. The cross-party committee for standards, which includes independent lay members, not only agreed unanimously to the recommendations made in the case of Owen Paterson, but also proposed the sanction separately to the commissioner ...

This is a retrograde step which risks undermining the public’s confidence in the system for holding MPs to account and dealing a fatal blow to the independent process set up to deal with complaints of bullying and harassment against MPs.

The full list of MPs who did not vote on the Andrea Leadsom amendment is here. It includes Theresa May, the former Tory PM.

The 13 Tory MPs who rebelled and voted against suspending Owen Paterson

The division list for the first vote is now on the Commons website.

It shows that 13 Tory MPs voted with the opposition against the Andrea Leadsom amendment to shelve Owen Paterson’s suspension. They were: Aaron Bell, Jackie Doyle-Price, Richard Fuller, Kate Griffiths, Mark Harper, Simon Hoare, Kevin Hollinrake, Nigel Mills, Jill Mortimer, Holly Mumby-Croft, Matthew Offord, John Stevenson, and William Wragg.

The list also shows that 98 Conservative MPs did not vote.

Updated

Gavin Barwell, Theresa May’s former chief of staff, says he expects Labour to boycott the proposed new committee that will recommend changes to the disciplinary system for MP and consider whether the Owen Paterson case should be reviewed. We have not heard yet from Labour what it will do, but the SNP has already said it will not take up its seat on the committee. (See 3.02pm.)

Updated

From Politico’s Alex Wickham

On a point of order after the result of the second division was called, Chris Bryant, the chair of the standards committee, said people wanted to know if his committee would carry on. It will, he says, and he will remain its chair.

John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, also made a point of order. He said no MP who was “truly honourable” would serve on the new committee being set up.

MPs passed the main motion as amended by 248 votes to 221 - a majority of 27.

Tory vote to protect Owen Paterson 'an absolute disgrace', says Labour

Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, has described the vote as “an absolute disgrace”.

Gavin Barwell, a Tory peer and former MP, who was chief of staff to Theresa May when she was prime minister, says this is a “terrible” outcome for parliament.

There are currently 361 Conservative MPs. The result of the vote suggests that more than 100 failed to vote for the Andrea Leadsom amendment – despite being whipped to do so. Some of those will be authorised absences, but most of those are probably deliberate abstentions.

Abstaining on a three-line whip is a form of rebellion – although it is not as serious as actually voting for the other side.

Updated

MPs are now voting for the main motion, as amended.

The opposition has pushed for a division - although if this vote were to be lost, Owen Paterson would get away with no punishment at all.

MPs vote to save Owen Paterson from 30-day suspension for breaking rules banning paid lobbying - by majority of just 18

MPs have voted for the Leadsom amendment, that will shelve the plan to suspend Owen Paterson from the Commons for 30 days for breaking the rule banning paid lobbying, by 250 votes to 232. That’s a majority of just 18. Normally Boris Johnson has a working majority of 79.

Updated

From the Times’ Steven Swinford

My colleague Aubrey Allegretti has also been told Tory MPs are already getting emails from angry constituents about this vote.

MPs are now voting on the Leadsom amendment.

Bryant says changing the rules at the last moment to benefit an individual is the very definition of injustice.

It is the very definition of injustice that one should change the rules or the process at the very last moment, and to do so for a named individual, which is what the amendment does today.

He says if this amendment is passed there will be two Commons standards committees operating. He says his committee is reviewing how the code of conduct works, as it is obliged to do every parliament. He says he accepts that it could do things better.

He says the committee did review the facts. But he suggests that there might be a case for saying it should, separately, be possible to appeal the sanction proposed (which would be different).

He says the outcome would have been different if Paterson had come to the committee and admitted he made a mistake. But Paterson did not do that, he says. He says the aggravating factor was “the lack of insight into a conflict of interest”.

And he ends by warning MPs they will be making a serious mistake if they back the Leadsom amendment.

Updated

Bryant says Owen Paterson had a fair hearing.

He says Paterson was able to make his case to the committee. The session was conducted respectfully, he says. He says Paterson is nodding at this point.

He says the proposed punishment is in line with other similar cases.

He says Paterson has said that he would do what he did again if he had the chance.

That means, if the report is overturned, MPs will be “dismantling the rule on paid advocacy, which has been around in some shape or form since 1695”.

If the house were to vote down or water down the sanction or carry the amendment, it would be endorsing his action. We would be dismantling the rule on paid advocacy which has been around in some shape or form since 1695.

I’m afraid the public would think that we would be the parliament that licensed cash for questions.

Updated

Back in the Commons Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the Commons standards committee, is winding up the debate.

He says he has considerable sympathy for Owen Paterson. He says he has experienced suicide in his family, and (as a vicar) presided over many funeral following suicides.

He says Paterson repeatedly broke the rules. He says he has not encountered any Tory MP who has not told him that Paterson “clearly broke the rules” – and that includes Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, he says.

(It is not clear whether this means Rees-Mogg privately thinks Paterson was in the wrong, or – as Rees-Mogg told the Commons earlier – he thinks that Paterson did break the rules, but that this was allowed, because of the public safety exemption.)

Updated

There is some mystery in the press gallery as to why Boris Johnson is pressing ahead with this vote, when the optics look so awful. One possible answer is that perhaps Johnson has concluded that perhaps voters do not care very much about this stuff.

If so, this calculation may be wrong, the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar says.

Updated

Sir Bill Cash (Con) is speaking now. The Speaker tells him he has just three minutes.

Cash says the committee should have set up an advisory panel to help it consider this case.

Harriet Harman (Lab), the mother of the house, is speaking now.

She says she has the utmost sympathy for Owen Paterson because of what happened to his wife. She admires the way he has responded to that by campaigning for other families affected by suicide like this, and she says in their time in the Commons together Paterson has always shown her kindness and courtesy.

But she says this is a process set up by MPs.

Changes can be proposed. But, as Alistair Carmichael said, that should only happen with cross-party support.

She says it is not right to overturn a decision because people have misgivings about its outcome.

Updated

Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative former leader of the Commons, is speaking now. She says she was disappointed by Pete Wishart’s speech. She says she thoroughly rejects the charge that she is being “disingenuous”, and only tabling this amendment to protect Owen Paterson.

She says Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, takes her job seriously. But she is not required to have a legal background. And she operates as the investigator and judge, Leadsom says.

She says, under a new system, the accused should be able to put their case to an independent case manager. She says witnesses for both sides should be heard. Legal representation should be allowed. The investigator should not be the prosecutor. And there should be a clear appeals process, she says.

Yvette Cooper (Lab) asks why Leadsom did not do anything about this when she was Commons leader if she thought the system was flawed.

Leadsom says she was working full time setting up the independent complaints and greivence scheme to protect MPs’ staff and Commons officials from bullying and sexual harrasment by MPs. If she had stayed in place, these reforms would have come next, she says.

Leadsom says, under her plan, she would like the committee to come up with a new system within three months.

In a reference to the suicide of Owen Paterson’s wife, she says it is sad that it has taken a tragedy for the Commons to act.

SNP would boycott proposed new committee, says Pete Wishart

Pete Wishart, the SNP spokesman on Commons matters, says he could not believe it when told the government would try to vote down the Owen Paterson report. He says he thought only a few MPs would try this.

He says he does not mind it if the Commons is seen as “sleaze-ridden and crony-ridden”. That benefits the SNP, he says.

He says, although the Andrea Leadsom amendment says the SNP should have a seat on the new committee, the SNP will “not serve on any kangaroo court ... in order to do away with any independent process”.

And he says Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, will have every right to walk way if the Leadsom motion is passed.

(He is the first MP to say this, but he must be right. If the Leadsom motion passes, Stone must be likely to resign.)

Updated

Sir Peter Bottomley (Con), the father of the house, is speaking now. He says he would vote to support the committee’s recommendations. And he would have voted for the Julian Lewis amendment, he says. (See 9.55am.) But he will not back the Andrea Leadsom amendment.

He says if the government wants a new system, it should propose one. But it should not be trying to change the system like this.

Debbonaire says it would be extraordinary for the Commons to overturn the standards committee findings.

And only last month, in the Rob Roberts case, the government was opposing retrospectively changing the rules, she says.

She says it is only Tory MPs who want to shelve the committee’s report.

Debbonaire says the government is giving out the impression that paid advocacy is fine.

It is being argued that Owen Paterson had no right of appeal.

But the commissioner’s findings were reviewed by the cross-party standards committee, she says.

And, she says, just because witnesses wanted to give evidence in person, that does not mean it should always happen. That does not happen in courts, she says; it is not the case anyone can always give evidence.

Updated

Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, is responding for Labour.

She says the committee concluded that this was an egregious case of paid advocacy.

Dame Margaret Hodge (Lab) intervenes to suggest that the most logical explanation for what the government is doing is that it is worried about the findings of further standards committee inquiries.

Debbonaire agrees that there is something odd about the timing of this. She says if the government wanted a debate on a new disciplinary process for MPs, it could have scheduled one itself.

Rees-Mogg says Owen Paterson has suffered, through the suicide of his wife, more than anything the Commons can impose in punishment.

He ends by quoting from Portia’s speech in the Merchant of Venice on the quality of mercy.

Rees-Mogg says in the House of Lords peers do have a right of appeal against a finding by the standards commissioner.

He confirms that the government is backing the Leadsom amendment. (See 9.55am.)

He says the review the Leadsom would set up would be a method that would allow the Commons to reset the process.

He says the new committee it would set up, chaired by the former Tory cabinet minister John Whittingdale, would not be the “judge, jury and executioner” in the Owen Paterson case. The committee would just decide whether or not the case should be reviewed.

Stephen Timms (Lab) says, if the exception mentioned by Rees-Mogg to the lobbying rule is allowed in the way Rees-Mogg suggested, then in practice there would be no ban on paid advocacy at all.

Rees-Mogg says there should a whistleblowing exemption. But he says in this case there has been a dispute about how widely that should apply.

Updated

Rees-Mogg says there is no consistency in the amount of time investigations take under the current procedure. He says a complaint about Chris Bryant, the standards committee’s chair, was resolved in just a week. The Paterson case took two years, he says.

He says the committee itself has acknoweldged that the time taken for inquiries is a problem.

An MP points out Rees-Mogg has already used up a third of the time set aside for this debate.

Rees-Mogg says that is because he has been responding to questions.

Yvette Cooper (Lab) says the old committee came to a view as to whether Owen Paterson broke the rules on paid advocacy. Why does Rees-Mogg think a new committee would do a better job?

Rees-Mogg says a new committee might come to the same conclusisons. But what matters is process, he says.

Alistair Carmichael (Lib Dem) says he is not opposed to the idea of reforming the system. But he says it is important to build a consensus first. The government is not doing that, he says.

Rees-Mogg says Owen Paterson was acting as a whistleblower, which is why he was entitled to make representations on behalf of companies paying him. He says Paterson pointed out problems with carcinogens in milk and processed foods and he claims this saved lives.

Rees-Mogg says it is the government’s view that MPs should get the same or similar rights to people accused of misconduct in other professions. That includes the right to examine witnesses, he says.

Rees-Mogg says the rules allow the parliamentary commissioner for standards to set up a panel to investigate in serious cases. But this did not happen in this case, he says.

Michael Fabricant (Con) says the commissioner refused to hear evidence from 17 witnesses offered up by Owen Paterson.

Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the committee, says these witnesses gave evidence in writing. That is a normal procedure, he says. (See 10.57am.)

Fabricant says they should have given evidence in person, so they could be cross-examined.

Review of Paterson's case could lead to even worse outcome for Paterson, Rees-Mogg claims

Dame Margaret Hodge (Lab) says it would be “terrible for our democracy” if the standards committee report were to be overturned.

Florence Eshalomi (Lab) says paid advocacy has been banned since 1695. Why is the government bending the rules?

Rees-Mogg says it isn’t. He says Owen Paterson was using a whistleblowing exemption.

Richard Burgon (Lab) says this looks dodgy because it is. This is the most corrupt government in modern times, he says.

Rees-Mogg says Burgon is the acme of partisanship.

Steve Baker (Con) says Paterson is not being let off. The review of his case could lead to an even worse outcome for him, he says.

Rees-Mogg says that is right.

Updated

Jess Phillips (Lab) asks Rees-Mogg if he would be saying all this if a Labour MP were involved.

Does he think he would be standing here today making these changes if it were a Labour MP involved?

Rees-Mogg claims he would be doing that.

I think she knows me well enough to know that the answer is yes, I would have no hesitation if I thought an honourable member opposite had not had a proper process.

Updated

Complaints about current disciplinary system for MPs 'too numerous to ignore', Rees-Mogg says

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, is opening the debate.

He says complaints about the current system are too numerous to avoid.

Members of Parliament must uphold the highest standards in public life. That is why the process for this House to consider standards infractions is of the utmost importance. It must be fair, robust and command respect across the whole House, there must be tough and robust checks against lobbying for profit, there must be a proper process to scrutinise, and if necessary discipline for those who do not follow the rules.

However, it is also my role as leader of the house to listen to the concerns and thoughts of members across the House, which are now too numerous to ignore.

He says he is not here to defend Owen Paterson. He says his concern is the fairness of the system. He says Paterson did not get a right of appeal.

Today I come not to defend [Paterson] but to consider the process by which he has been tried. It is not for me to judge him, others have done that, but was the process a fair one? Let justice be done though the heavens fall.

The concerns that have been raised with me in this case and other standards cases by honourable members from government and opposition parties include the lack of examination of witnesses, the unused mechanism for the appointment of an investigatory panel, the interpretation of the rules relating to whistleblowing, the length of time taken for and the lack of continuity and participation in investigations, the application of aggravating factors and the absence of the right of appeal.

Kevin Hollinrake (Con) suggests that the committee itself functions as an appeal body, because it reviews the findings of the parliamentary commissioner for standards.

Rees-Mogg says the committee cannot be an appeal body, because it is the committee’s report that MPs are considering.

He says he would like to think that the house as a whole, when it debates the committee’s report, could serve as providing an appeal process. But he says that cannot happen because it is too partisan.

The committee is clearly not an appeal process because it is the committee’s report that comes before us, it is not the commissioner’s report. And the commissioner is the adviser to the committee, supervised by the committee.

I wish it were right, that this chamber were the court of appeal, but we have seen, as this matter has been discussed, how quickly what goes on in this chamber becomes partisan and I feel...

That triggers loud laughter from opposition MPs, who believe that it is the government that is being partisan.

Updated

MPs debate report calling for Owen Paterson to be suspended for 30 days

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, is taking the chair for the debate.

He says Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, will open the debate, and Chris Bryant, the chair of the standards committee, will get to respond at the end.

He confirms that he has selected Andrea Leadsom’s amendment.

And he tells MPs that, while they can criticise the disciplinary process, they should not attack Commons officials who are not able to defend themselves.

This is a reference to Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards. In its report the standards committee criticised Owen Paterson for making what it described as serious and unsubstantiated allegations against her. The committee said:

Mr Paterson’s allegations seem to us to spring from incomprehension that the commissioner could place an interpretation on the rules and the evidence which differed from his own. A member is entitled to contest, even vigorously contest, the commissioner’s interpretation of the rules and her findings. We do not mark down any member for doing so. It is, however, completely unacceptable to make unsubstantiated, serious, and personal allegations against the integrity of the commissioner and her team, who cannot respond publicly.

Britain is showing a “constructive” spirit in talks with France to resolve a row over post-Brexit fishing licences, the French government has said, in a further sign the dispute may be entering calmer waters. My colleagues Jennifer Rankin and Lisa O’Carroll have the story here.

Owen Paterson has arrived in the Commons for the debate on his future, my colleague John Crace reports.

Boris Johnson has finished his statement to MPs about the G20 and Cop26. Robert Halfon is now proposing a 10-minute rule bill, and the debate on the Owen Paterson report will start when he has finished (in about five minutes).

David Warburton, the Conservative MP and who chairs the all-party parliamentary group (APPG) on Music, has written to Boris Johnson demanding “urgent action” over the crisis facing musicians and crew touring the EU.

The APPG on Music has also revealed plans to hold a cross-party inquiry into the costly barriers and delays facing musicians, particularly emerging artists.

As part of its investigation, the MPs are calling for evidence on the impact the trade and cooperation agreement (TCA) – the UK/EU trade deal signed following the UK’s departure from the EU – has had on UK music workers and companies looking to tour and work short-term in EU member states.

It comes after Sir Elton John warned in June that the UK music industry risked losing a “generation of talent” and branded the situation a “looming catastrophe” for artists.

Commenting on the letter, Warburton said:

Musicians and crew are facing an enormous and grave problem when it comes to touring the EU that is not going to go away ... We need the government to ramp up negotiations with nations like Spain where costly visas are still in place and to look for swift solutions to both the visa and transport issues.

Updated

The UK’s ability to cope with new Brexit checks for the export of food to Europe has been hit by a dramatic fall in the number of EU vets coming to the UK, MPs have heard.

Demand for vets, now required to sign off export health certificates, has rocketed since Brexit.

But James Russell, senior vice president of the British Veterinary Association, told the international trade committee that since Brexit the number of EU vets registering in the first eight months of the year had fallen to 250 from 757 in the equivalent period in 2019. The drop was significant given that EU vets represented 50% of the register before Brexit.

“We’re less than a third of the vets coming into the country,” he said.

Updated

No 10 denies being motivated by desire to let Owen Paterson off the hook

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing No 10 claimed that its backing for the Andrea Leadsom amendment is not about letting Owen Paterson off the hook, the Mirror’s Pippa Crerar reports.

No 10 also said this was not a case of MPs marking their own homework, the Mail’s Jason Groves reports.

Updated

The Public Relations and Communications Association, which represents the PR industry, has said in a statement the Owen Paterson affair shows the need for tougher lobbying legislation. “This dispute stems from a lack of effective lobbying legislation,” it said. “The row over Owen Paterson’s activity offers unequivocal proof that our lobbying laws need to be overhauled.”

Sir Peter Bottomley, the Conservative MP and father of the Commons, told the World at One that he would not be voting for the Leadsom amendment, Sky’s Tamara Cohen reports.

Here are two of the leading newspaper political columnists on the Owen Paterson debate.

From the FT’s Robert Shrimsley

From my colleague Rafael Behr

You can read the Leadsom amendment in full here.

Johnson claims Paterson has been denied 'natural justice', as Rayner accuses him of 'wallowing in sleaze'

Boris Johnson accused Labour of “playing politics” with the Owen Paterson case during PMQs. He was responding to Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, who said the Tories are now “wallowing in sleaze”.

Rayner asked about the Paterson case in her opening question, and Johnson started off by saying “paid lobbying, paid advocacy in this house is wrong”. But this case was about the fairness of the inquiry, he claimed.

The issue in this case, which involved a serious family tragedy, is whether a member of this house had a fair opportunity to make representations in this case and whether, as a matter of a natural justice, our procedures in this House allow for proper appeal.

Rayner claimed that in no other profession would someone found guilty of misconduct be let off just because their friends were supporting them. She said:

In no other profession in our country could someone be found guilty by an independent process and just have their mates vote them back into the job. Surely the prime minister and this government are not going to do that today …

If it was a police officer, a teacher, a doctor, we would expect the independent process to be followed and not changed after the verdict. It is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.

She also said: “While [the Conservatives] are wallowing in sleaze, the rest of the country faces higher bills, rising costs and damaging tax rises.”

But Johnson claimed that Paterson had been denied a right of appeal. He said:

All the professions that she mentions have a right of appeal. That is what the house needs to consider. May I respectfully say to [Rayner] that instead of playing politics on this issue, which is what they are doing, I think that she needs to consider the procedures of this house in a spirit of fairness.

The claim that Paterson was denied natural justice was strongly denied by Labour’s Chris Bryant, chair of the standards committee, in his article for the Daily Telegraph. See 10.57am.

Updated

Robert Barrington, professor of anti-corruption practice at the University of Sussex, has posted a thread on Twitter strongly critical of the government’s stance in the Owen Paterson case. It starts here.

From the FT’s George Parker

These are from Patrick Maguire from the Times on the 59 Tory MPs who have signed the Andrea Leadsom amendment.

And this is from Sam Bright from Byline Times on the same group of MPs.

Of course, now it is not just the 59 Tories named on the order paper (pdf) who are backing the amendment; all Conservatives have been told to vote for it.

Updated

Prospect, a union representing many workers in the public sector, has condemned the proposal to vote down the Commons standards committee report into Owen Paterson. Garry Graham, its deputy general secretary, said:

The commissioner for standards is the key guarantor of independence for staff ensuring that MPs who breach financial or behavioural standards are properly censured.

This isn’t just about lobbying, it is about serious cases of bullying, sexual harassment, and abuse of staff.

Progress has been made in recent years, especially with the establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, but in a misguided attempt to overturn a clear finding against a colleague, some Conservative MPs are in danger of fatally undermining everything the ICGS was put in place to do and shattering the fragile trust that staff have in the system.

Angela Rayner is responding for Labour. She says the next week and a half will be crucial.

She says Labour wants Cop26 to be a success.

But there is some cause for concern, she says. The G20 needed to be a springboard for Cop26. But it did not achieve that, she says. She says the PM is failing to persuade world leaders that more needs to be done. She says commitments for the distant future are not enough.

She says the government should have followed the example of Wales, and ruled out new coal mines. And the government is agreeing a trade deal with Australia that excludes climate pledges.

Turning to vaccines, she says in some of the poorest countries only 3% of people have been vaccinated. The UK is lagging behind all G7 countries bar one in sharing vaccines. That is “shameful”, she says.

Johnson's Commons statement on G20 summit and Cop26

Boris Johnson is making a statement on the G20 summit in Rome and Cop26.

He says at Paris the world agreed to keep the increase in global temperature to 1.5C.

Now is the moment of global reckoning, he says.

If we fail, Paris will have been a failure, and every other summit too, he says.

He says if global temperatures were to rise by 2C, coral reefs would be destroyed. There would be an ever warming and acidic ocean.

He says the G20 summit provided “encouraging evidence” of that will to deal with this.

Britain was the first G20 country to commit to net zero. Now 18 of the G20 countries have done that, he says.

He says the G20, including China, agreed to stop funding international coal projects.

The G20 also agreed to levy corporation tax at 15%.

It adopted a target of vaccinating 70% of the world’s population against Covid by next year, he says.

And the G20 agreed to work together to address supply chain problems, he says.

Johnson says far more needs to be done to spare humanity from catastrophic climate change.

So the biggest summit ever hosted by the UK is now underway in Glasgow, he says. It is trying to keep the aspiration of 1.5C alive, he says.

He says for millions of people the outcome is literally a matter of life or death.

The negotiations have two weeks to run. But we can take heart from what has been achieved so far, he says. He says 90% of the world’s economies are now committed to net zero. There have been agreements on methane and deforestation. India has set a target for half its energy to come from renewable sources.

Johnson says he asked the world for action on coal, cars, cash and trees. Progress is being made on three out of four of these, he says. He says the government will press on with this until the last hour.

Updated

Ruth Edwards (Con) asks if the PM supports her campaign for new healthcare centre in Rushcliffe.

Johnson says he is sure the health secretary will do his utmost to help.

Johnson says he would oppose a “checkpoint Chigwell” proposal to charge cars coming into London.

Johnson says the government has helped people on universal credit with a “£1bn tax cut”.

He is referring to the lowering of the taper rate, which is a benefit increase not a tax cut.

Johnson says it would be massively in the interests of Iran and its people it it were to return to the international nuclear energy agreement.

Mike Wood (Con) asks if the PM agrees stop and search is necessary to keep the streets safe.

Johnson says he made this point recently in a meeting with Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London. He says Khan did not share his support for stop and search.

Paul Blomfield (Lab) asks about a constituent who is a victim of the cladding crisis. When asked about her case recently, the PM said she had an unnecessary sense of anxiety. Will the PM meet her to explain this?

Johnson says he has every sympathy for this person. But it is unfair if people are made to feel anxious unnecessarily. He says systems like waking watches are making people worried. Many millions of homes are not unsafe. Blomfield should have the courage to say so, he says.

Sarah Green (Lib Dem) says global warming makes epileptic seizures more common.

Johnson says this issue is very interesting. The government will look into it, he says.

Jill Mortimer (Con) asks about a constituent whose two-year-old daughter went missing almost 40 years ago. Will the PM meet the father and reassure him this case has not been forgotten?

Johnson says he will have this meeting “father to father”.

Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative chair of the health committee, asks if the PM agrees that Health Education England should do regular forecasts of the number of new medics who need to be trained.

Johnson says the government is already hiring more doctors and nurses.

Florence Eshalomi (Lab) asks about a constituent who killed herself after being abused. But her abusive partner is set to inherit her estate because she had not got divorced when she died. Will the government fix this loophole?

Johnson says MPs will share Eshalomi’s revulsion at this. He agrees to a meeting to consider this loophole.

Updated

Andrea Leadsom (Con) welcomes the support for early years development in the budget.

Johnson says Leadsom, who has been campaigning for better early years spending for many years, is entirely right.

Kate Osborne (Lab) asks when the PM will get serious about levelling up in the north-east.

Johnson says the north-east will benefit from the biggest investment in rail, outside HS2, for a century.

Peter Gibson (Con) asks about the eastern leg of HS2.

Johnson says Gibson should wait until the integrated rail plan comes out.

Neale Hanvey (Alba) says the rest of the UK is dependent on Scotland for carbon capture and storage. Does the PM realise that his rejection of this is seen in Scotland as an act of deliberate vandalism.

Johnson says the government will come back to the Scottish cluster bid. The spirit of cooperation and joint enterprise on display across the whole of the UK is encouraging, he says.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, says David Attenborough’s statement to Cop26 said carbon capture was essential. Scotland is finding partners from all over the world for carbon capture and storage. But the UK government has not backed the Scottish initiative on CCS.

Johnson says the Scottish proposal is on the shortlist for UK government backing. He says he is a great support of CCS.

Blackford says Johnson does not know or understand what the government was rejecting when it rejected the Scottish cluster bid. It was the best bid from the UK. It would have stored 30% of UK emissions, he says.

Johnson says Blackford should be less gloomy about the prospects for the Scottish bid. We will come back to this, he says.

Rayner says she is from a military family herself. She says the government’s words are not matched by their actions. She says she knows of veterans being sanctioned after not being able to travel to an interview. Will the PM match Labour’s plan to give veterans more support?

Johnson says, because the government has been able to run a strong economy, it has been able to invest in the NHS and support the armed forces. He says he enjoys his discussions with Rayner. She has more energy than Keir Starmer, he says. But it is the same old Labour – no plan, no ideas.

Updated

Rayner says the budget included a £4bn tax cut for banks.

She says the budget also included a £1bn cut to day-to-day defence spending. Will the armed forces have to take a pay cut?

Johnson says it is incredible that Labour says this when it wanted to take the UK out of Nato. And he claims one of Rayner’s colleagues wanted to abolish the army.

Rayner says the Resolution Foundation says by 2026 people will be paying £3,000 more in tax. What tax cut was given to the banks?

Johnson says the banks are paying more in tax. And Labour voted against more money for the NHS, he says.

Updated

Rayner says this would not be allowed in the case of a policeman or a teacher.

Johnson says in cases like those, people have a right of appeal. He accuses Labour of playing politics.

Rayner says this is not about playing politics. It is about playing by the rules. She says the PM should learn from Donald Trump; if you break the rules, it catches up with you. She says the Tories are “wallowing in sleaze”.

Switching to tax, she asks how much the tax take is rising as a result of the budget.

Johnson says the budget took cash from those who can afford it most to help people in need.

Updated

Angela Rayner says all MPs should agree that an independent standards procedure found an MP broke the rule on paid lobbying. Yet it is reported that the PM backs attempts to overturn this process. In no other profession could a person be guilty, only for their mates to be allowed to vote them back into their job.

Johnson says that is not going to happen. Paid advocacy in this house is wrong. People should pay the price. But that is not the issue in this case. He says the Owen Paterson case involved a family tragedy. And the issue is whether the procedure was fair.

Updated

Rupa Huq (Lab) asks the PM what he will tell his grandchildren when they ask him what he did about climate warming. And she calls for a fresh vote to cancel plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

Johnson says he wants to get to net zero aviation. “That’s the future for this country - clean, green aviation,” he says. And he says he thinks this will arrive a lot earlier than the third runway at Heathrow (which he famously opposes personally, although it is still government policy).

Boris Johnson starts by saying, since the Commons will be in recess next week, he wants to pay tribute to people who lost their lives for the country ahead of Armistice Day.

PMQs

PMQs is starting shortly.

Sir Keir Starmer is still isolating after testing positive for Covid, so Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, will be leading for the opposition.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

PMQs list
PMQs list Photograph: HoC

Tory MPs are now under a three-line whip to vote for the Leadsom amendment, PA’s Sam Blewett reports.

Speaker confirms he will allow vote on government-backed move to stop Paterson being suspended from Commons

The Speaker’s office has confirmed that Sir Lindsay Hoyle will select the Andrew Leadsom amendment. But the Julian Lewis one will not be put to a vote. (See 9.55am.)

This means that the crunch vote, which will see Tory MPs told to shelve a report from the cross-party standards committee, will go ahead, at some point after 3pm.

Given that the government has a working majority of around 80, the chances of the amendment being passed must be high. According to Commons officials, this would be unprecedented. Since the second world war there has never been a successful attempt to block or water down a proposal to suspend an MP for breaking rules.

Updated

No 10 confirms its backing for bid to shelve damning Paterson lobbying report, saying new system needed

Downing Street has just issued a statement essentially confirming that Boris Johnson wants Tory MPs to vote for the Leadsom amendment. Until now the government has not said this on the record.

A No 10 spokespeson said:

It is essential that all in parliament uphold the highest standards in public life. There must be tough and robust checks against lobbying for profit. There must be a proper process to scrutinise and – if necessary – discipline those who do not follow the rules.

As in any normal workplace and all walks of life, people should be entitled to the right to appeal. This is sacrosanct in providing fairness and natural justice, and ensuring there is an opportunity to check due process and that the right procedures were followed.

This isn’t about one case but providing members of parliament from all political parties with the right to a fair hearing.

Therefore the Commons should seek cross-party agreement on a new appeals process whereby the conclusions of the standards committee and the commissioner can be looked at. This could include judicial and lay member representation on the appeals panel.

This statement calls for cross-party agreement on a new system. But the Leadsom amendment does not have cross-party support.

And it also ignores the fact that there is an element of review built into the current system, because it involves the parliamentary commissioner for standards doing an investigation and compiling a report, which is then reviewed by the standards committee. The committee includes lay representation, and it can – and sometimes does – overturn findings from the commissioner. This happened when the commissioner said Boris Johnson broke the code of conduct for MPs in relation to his holiday in Mustique, but the committee itself cleared him on this point.

Updated

Steven Swinford from the Times says Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, is expected to allow the Leadsom amendment (see 9.55am) to be put to a vote.

But he says some Tory MPs will refuse to back it.

This is from Hannah White, deputy director of the Institute for Government thinktank, essentially agreeing with Chris Bryant’s argument (see 10.57am) about public reaction to the Tory proposal to protect Owen Paterson.

White also points out that what is being proposed today, effectively a retrospective change to the standards rules, was something that Downing Street explicitly ruled out in the Rob Roberts case. Roberts is the Tory MP who was suspended from the Commons for six weeks for sexual harrassment but who avoided the potential recall election because of an unintended technical loophole in Commons rules that has now been closed.

Voting down Paterson lobbying report would do 'great damage to parliament', says standards committee chair

In an article for the Daily Telegraph (paywall) Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons standards committee, says the claims from Owen Paterson and his supporters about the inquiry into him being unfair are unfounded. Bryant says:

Mr Paterson has made several allegations. First, he claims the commissioner refused to meet him. This is untrue. Her first email offered to meet him. It took him more than a year to take her up on that offer.

He complains she preferred to deal with the allegations in writing rather than in person. This is the normal process, and it is what his lawyers requested in November 2020. We hope Mr Paterson would accept that the committee gave him a full opportunity to put his case, in writing and in person, and with his lawyers present.

He complains nobody ‘interviewed’ his witnesses. This is misleading. Both the commissioner and the committee considered the 17 witness statements he provided in detail. Mr Paterson also alleges that the commissioner had already made up her mind. This is untrue. As with every other case, the commissioner investigates allegations, and if she finds on the evidence before her that there appears to have been a breach of the code, she drafts a memorandum, which she submits to the MP concerned for them to correct any factual errors or make further submissions in defence or mitigation.

By definition, when she submits a memorandum to the committee, she considers that there has been a breach. But it is for the committee, which has seven independent lay members and seven MPs from different parties, to decide whether the commissioner is right and what the sanction should be. The committee invites the Member concerned to make further submissions in writing, in person, or both.

Finally, Mr Paterson complains that the investigation took two years. It is true that the commissioner was unable to make any progress during the first lockdown. She also, rightly, suspended the investigation for several months after Rose Paterson’s death, and only recommenced it with the agreement of Mr Paterson’s lawyers. But every other delay has been at Mr Paterson’s request.

Bryant says that if MPs vote down his committee’s report, or try to water it down, they will be doing “great damage to parliament”.

He says that “the biggest problem for Mr Paterson is that the facts that he provided speak for themselves” and he urges people to read the report into the case published by his committee last week. It is here (pdf).

Updated

Nandy accuses Tories of 'appalling double standards' over rule breaking

Lisa Nandy, the shadow foreign secretary, told Sky News this morning that what was being proposed by the Conservatives today in relation to Owen Paterson was “appalling double standards”. She said:

I think it’s the most appalling double standards. In 100 years this has never happened, where members of the House of Commons have tried to completely, not just overturn a decision that has been made by a parliamentary committee and by the independent standards commissioner, but also to try and jettison the system that governs it.

I’ve got constituents who make mistakes on their claims for universal credit, who are hit with large fines, with no right of appeal, and yet you’ve got a member of parliament who’s been found by a committee with Tory MPs on it to have broken the parliamentary rules.

She also said that what the Tories were doing was undermining trust in politics.

The problem for Owen Paterson, for Andrea Leadsom and for all these Tories and, including now, it appears, the prime minister, who was saying that they don’t want the system to apply, is that it is one rule for everybody else and another rule for them. That’s just simply unacceptable.

Owen Paterson has had three chances to make his case. Nobody is disputing the fact that he broke the rules and there has to be sanctions for that. It matters. It matters to trust in politics, it matters to trust in government, and what the government is doing at the moment is undermining that.

Lisa Nandy
Lisa Nandy. Photograph: Sky News

Updated

John Glen, a Treasury minister, was doing the broadcast round for the government this morning. He would not confirm that Tory MPs will be whipped to support the Leadsom amendment, but he suggested that the inquiry into Owen Paterson may have been unfair. He told Sky News:

It’s a procedural matter for the House of Commons, that’s what we’re talking about here, over the apparent fairness of the way that investigation was undertaken, that’s the concern that I think colleagues across the house have.

It’s a matter for the House of Commons to respond to that report and it’s also a matter of concern around the procedure leading up to that report making those conclusions. I think most people would agree that when there’s a dispute over someone’s conduct there’s got to be fair and due process before an outcome and a determination of the consequences is made. I think that’s the area the House of Commons, across all parties, will want to look at today.

John Glen.
John Glen. Photograph: Sky News

Updated

'We're not letting Paterson off', says Tory backing move to shelve his 30-day suspension

Sir Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative MP who has put his name to the Andrea Leadsom amendment (see 9.55am), told the Today programme this morning that the system for policing the conduct of MPs had been flawed for years and that today’s vote was an opportunity to fix it. He insisted that the amendment was not designed to let Owen Paterson off. Jenkin said:

We’re not letting Owen Paterson off, we’re not exonerating him, we’re not condoning him, we’re going to put his case in front of a proper judicial-style panel where there can be a proper hearing and proper cross-examination of witnesses and natural justice.

Asked to confirm that the government will tell Tory MPs to back the amendment, Jenkin replied: “I have had various discussions with ministers, nothing has been decided.”

Jenkin is a member of the Commons standards committee, but he did not take part in its inquiry into Paterson because Paterson is a close personal friend.

Jenkin and Paterson were also prominent Vote Leave campaigners, as were Andrea Leadsom and many of the other Tories who have signed her amendment. At times Paterson and his supporters have claimed there is a political dimension to the inquiry against him. The inquiry was triggered by this article in the Guardian in September 2019, and the involvement of the pro-remain Guardian is seen by Paterson’s allies as evidence that there is a Brexit dimension to the row.

Updated

What the two Tory amendments that would protect Paterson are saying

There are two amendments on the order paper today to the motion saying that Owen Paterson should be suspended from the Commons for 30 days, as recommended by the standards committee. You can read the both in full here (pdf).

The main one has been tabled by Andrea Leadsom, the Conservative former leader of the Commons. It “notes concerns expressed about potential defects in the standards system and therefore declines to consider the [standards committee] report at this time”.

Instead, the Leadsom amendment says a new committee should be set up to consider changes to the current standards system. The committee should be chaired by John Whittingdale, the Tory former culture secretary, and it should include four other Conservative MPs, three Labour MPs and one SNP MP, the motion says. It also says this committee should consider whether the case against Paterson should be reviewed.

In total 59 Conservatives have put their names to this amendment.

The second one has been tabled by Julian Lewis, the Conservative chair of the intelligence and security committee. It “notes” the standards committee report but says the Commons should resolve “on compassionate grounds, that no further action be taken”. This is a reference to the fact that Owen Paterson’s wife, Rose, took her own life last year. Paterson says the parliamentary inquiry into his conduct was a “major factor” in his wife’s decision.

The Lewis amendment has been signed by 15 MPs – all Tories except for Sammy Wilson, who is a DUP MP.

Updated

Labour accuses PM of return to 'worst of 1990s sleaze culture' after he backs Tory bid to overturn Paterson lobbying findings

Good morning. It is almost 30 years since the cash for questions scandal, which revealed how MPs were using their status as parliamentarians for personal gain. It led to the creation of the committee on standards in public life and a major overhaul of the rules governing what MPs are and are not allowed to do. Over the last three decades the system has been criticised, and amended, but by and large it has survived with cross-party support. But today Boris Johnson and the Conservatives seem ready to blow that consensus apart by voting for an overhaul of the system that would protect Owen Paterson, the Tory former cabinet minister, from a 30-day suspension for breaking lobbying rules.

The cross-party Commons standards committee recommended the punishment, on the basis of the findings of an investigation from Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards. Since the end of the second world war, disciplinary recommendations from this committee or its predecessors have almost always been accepted by the Commons as a whole, normally without a vote. For a standards committee finding to be rejected as comprehensively as is being proposed today is thought to be unprecedented.

Here is my colleague Aubrey Allegretti’s preview story.

It is not at all clear yet, though, how today will pan out. It is up to the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to decide whether he will allow a vote on the Tory amendment, tabled by Andrea Leadsom, essentially rejecting the Paterson findings, and it has been reported that Hoyle believes that, if MPs were to reject the standards committee report, that would do “real reputational damage” to the Commons.

If Hoyle does not allow a vote on the amendment, Paterson’s supporters could simply try to vote down the proposed suspension. But that would look even worse, because they would be voting to protect him without launching a review of the case. The proposed suspension could end up being approved after a division showing MPs split, probably largely along party lines. This would be damaging too, because it would show the process in place for policing the conduct of MPs no longer commanding widespread cross-party support.

Labour has accused the government of wanting a return to “the worst of the 1990s Tory sleaze culture”. Last night, after it was reported that Johnson wants Tory MPs to back the Leadsom amendment, Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, said:

It is shocking that government ministers are being encouraged to vote for a return to the worst of the 1990s Tory sleaze culture. A vote for this amendment would turn the clock back to the era of Neil Hamilton, cash for questions and no independent standards process.

Let’s not forget that the cross-party standards committee, including three Tory MPs, endorsed the commissioner’s 30 day sanction for a breach of the rule around paid advocacy.

On Monday the government failed to endorse the anti-sleaze report from Lord Evans of Weardale. Now the Tories want to jettison the systems that has served us well and which has been a vital part of rebuilding public trust after the dark days of Tory sleaze this government seems determined to return to.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9am: Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, holds a press conference at Cop26. For full coverage, do read out Cop26 live blog.

10am: Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, gives evidence to the Commons education committee.

12pm: Boris Johnson faces Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, at PMQs. Sir Keir Starmer is still isolating because he tested positive for Covid.

After 12.30pm: Johnson makes a Commons statement on Cop26.

After 1.30pm: MPs begin the debate on the standards committee report about Owen Paterson. The voting will come 90 minutes later.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Netflix's new series looks like the cosiest show ever made, and could be huge
Little House on the Prairie is an institution
T3
T3
I'm excited to be on Instagram, says Sandra Bullock
Sandra Bullock already has more than five million followers on Instagram.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Texas woman goes on 3 dates with man. Then she gets a call from another woman: ‘You know about the arrest right?’
Three dates in, he was already talking marriage, stepkids, and forever. A little intense, but not exactly a crime… or so she thought. Nearly a year after walking away, one phone call turned this Texas woman’s “he came on too strong” story into something far darker.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
“Monitoring your every move”: Ami Kozak parody of Candace Owens on Erika Kirk goes viral as fans say he decoded her
Ami Kozak’s parody of Candace Owens went viral for its sharp and funny imitation. By joking about Erika Kirk and Charlie Kirk with exaggerated claims, Kozak created a clip that felt both real and absurd. Social media users praised the accuracy, shared feedback, and said the video perfectly captured Owens’…
The Times of India
The Times of India
Four ways you are sabotaging your health without realizing it
A lot of roads lead to back pain, say experts, including binge-watching your favourite shows
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
“How Low-Class”: Obscene Moment Of MLB Fan Caught On Camera At Pirates Game
A couple’s cheeky moment at a baseball game didn’t stay private for long after TV cameras caught their handsy act.
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play