Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

North Shropshire by-election

PR1Berske

Alligator in chains by the park gates.
A recall petition is potentially to open in the constituency of North Shropshire.

The Parliamentary Standards committee recommends Owen Paterson be suspended for 30 days over breaching lobbying rules. Their report is 174 pages long if you're up for a long read.

Guardian report:

The Conservative MP Owen Paterson faces a 30-day suspension from the House of Commons for an “egregious” breach of lobbying rules, raising the possibility he could lose his seat if enough constituents trigger a byelection.

The MP for North Shropshire, a former cabinet minister, was found by the Commons commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, to have breached paid advocacy rules, after it was discovered he had worked as a consultant to Randox, a clinical diagnostics company, since August 2015. It was also discovered he was a paid consultant to Lynn’s Country Foods, a processor and distributor of meat products since December 2016.



In a ruling handed down on Tuesday, the commissioner found he made three approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Randox and the testing of antibiotics in milk; seven approaches to the same agency relating to Lynn’s Country Foods; and four approaches to ministers at the Department for International Development relating to Randox and blood testing technology.

Advertisement

Stone said he had failed to declare his interest and used his parliamentary office on 16 occasions for business meetings with his clients between October 2016 and February 2020, and sent two letters relating to his business interests on taxpayer-funded Commons-headed notepaper.

She called it “an egregious case of paid advocacy” and said Paterson had “repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the house into disrepute”.

The standards committee ruled Paterson should be suspended from the Commons for 30 sitting days.

Under a law introduced in the wake of the MPs’ expenses scandal, any MP suspended for more than 10 days can face a trigger ballot where their constituents decide whether to force a byelection by supporting a recall petition. Ten per cent of the electors in Paterson’s seat would need to support the petition for a byelection to be called.


Evening Standard

onservative MP Owen Paterson is facing a 30 day suspension from the House of Commons after a watchdog found he broke lobbying rules in an “egregious case of paid advocacy”.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said the former Cabinet minister had improperly lobbied for clinical diagnostics company Randox and meat processor Lynn’s Country Foods.
In a ruling handed down on Tuesday, the commissioner found that Mr Paterson had breached a rule prohibiting paid advocacy in the MPs’ Code of Conduct in making three approaches to the Food Standards Agency relating to Randox and the testing of antibiotics in milk in November 2016 and 2017.


He was also found to have made seven approaches to the same agency for Lynn’s Country Foods between November 2017 and July 2018.
Elsewhere, the report found that he had approached ministers in the Department for International Development on four occasions relating to Randox and blood testing technology in October 2016 and January 2017
It claimed that Mr Paterson “repeatedly used his privileged position to benefit two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, and that this has brought the House into disrepute”.

Mr Paterson also breached the code over use of parliamentary facilities by using his parliamentary office for business meetings with clients on 25 occasions between October 2016 and February 2020.
Owen Paterson was found to have breached the code over use of parliamentary facilities
/ PA
He also sent two letters relating to business interests on House of Commons headed notepaper in October 2016 and January 2017.

The Committee acknowledged there were mitigating factors around the investigation into Mr Paterson, including the death of his wife Rose in June 2020.

The report said: “Mr Paterson’s wife took her own life in June 2020. The committee consider it very possible that grief and distress caused by this event has affected the way in which Mr Paterson approached the commissioner’s investigation thereafter.”

Relating to the breach of use of his office, the committee also acknowledged Mr Paterson had been suffering from ill health which “made him less able easily to leave the parliamentary estate”.
The committee added Mr Paterson’s “passion and expertise” in food and farming matters was “admirable, as long as it is channelled within the rules of the House”.

Have your say...Get involved in exciting, inspiring conversations with other readers.VIEW COMMENTS
 
Owen has released a lengthy statement on his website that ends thusly :



I believe that no other MP should ever again be subject to this shockingly
inadequate process. As in normal judicial proceedings, MPs subject to
investigations must have a chance to see their evidence fully considered. There
must be no mystery about interpretations of law that investigations apply. The
Committee for Standards has been clear that the Office of the Commissioner is
under an obligation to respond to points made by MPs under investigation.
Normal judicial processes, such as the levelling of charges and the interviewing
of witnesses, must be followed. If witness evidence is not challenged, it must
stand. It is absolutely extraordinary that not one of the 17 witnesses, all of
whom supported my narrative, were never contacted let alone spoken to by the
Commissioner or the Committee.

Parliament’s internal system of justice needs to operate properly within the
principles of natural justice.

In my case, I am very clear that I acted properly and within the rules, putting my
lifetime experience, my many years as an MP and my service as a Cabinet
Minister towards ensuring the public good.

I am quite clear that I acted properly, honestly and within the Rules.

The Rt Hon Owen Paterson MP
 
I've seen this described as what happens when a new generation of MPs don't feel as connected to the expenses scandal as their predecessors.

Either way, it looks shit.
 
I don't get why's Johnson so desperate to save Patterson from a recall?
not been a minister since 2014, just another backbencher of no great note. not as far as I know any particular ally of Johnson.
20k majority so they can't really be worried about losing the seat. and even if they did lose, it doesn't really matter with the government's 80 seat majority like it would've done pre-2019 GE.

is it worth generating the headline to distract from other shit going on this week?
 
I don't get why's Johnson so desperate to save Patterson from a recall?
not been a minister since 2014, just another backbencher of no great note. not as far as I know any particular ally of Johnson.
20k majority so they can't really be worried about losing the seat. and even if they did lose, it doesn't really matter with the government's 80 seat majority like it would've done pre-2019 GE.

is it worth generating the headline to distract from other shit going on this week?
A pretext for doing what they wanted.
 
I don't get why's Johnson so desperate to save Patterson from a recall?
not been a minister since 2014, just another backbencher of no great note. not as far as I know any particular ally of Johnson.
20k majority so they can't really be worried about losing the seat. and even if they did lose, it doesn't really matter with the government's 80 seat majority like it would've done pre-2019 GE.

is it worth generating the headline to distract from other shit going on this week?

Boris is infamous for creating shit from silk. This whole affair could have been avoided. It's become yet another disaster.
 
I don't get why's Johnson so desperate to save Patterson from a recall?
not been a minister since 2014, just another backbencher of no great note. not as far as I know any particular ally of Johnson.
20k majority so they can't really be worried about losing the seat. and even if they did lose, it doesn't really matter with the government's 80 seat majority like it would've done pre-2019 GE.

is it worth generating the headline to distract from other shit going on this week?
I don't get it all , I hadn't seen much about the proposed suspension until they decided to change the rules so he got away with it. 80 seat majority so a 30 day extension is nothing . Now they have given the story legs and it will cause them more damage. Can there still be a recall petition if he's "innocent" ?
 
I don't get it all , I hadn't seen much about the proposed suspension until they decided to change the rules so he got away with it. 80 seat majority so a 30 day extension is nothing . Now they have given the story legs and it will cause them more damage. Can there still be a recall petition if he's "innocent" ?
Johnson was due to be investigated by the same commissioner/committee; pretty sure that’s all we need to know when attempting to unpick the motivation
 

presumably most if not all of those 28 were paired or off ill. That said, it probably suits Labour for this to go through anyway - a recall petition which might not have been successful followed by a by-election they wouldn't win wouldn't have given them much opportunity to make any political capital at all - this way the story runs and runs.
 
It’s amazing how quickly the the toryscum have taken to publicly bleating over bad words said by others after tge death of that Essex MP.
 
I wasn't surprised by the result of this vote [to re-work the standards committee and let patterson "off" his 30 sitting days suspension]. Nor with Roberts about to get the whip back ...
Par for the course with these sleazybawbags ...

Can OPatterson be re-called, anyway ?

What did surprise me is that my MP didn't vote, at all ... he's usually a good little voter, especially with 3-line whips
 
Can there still be a recall petition if he's "innocent" ?
nope.
there's no right for a recall petition to be started just cos constituents might want it. there needs to be a trigger from a list of 3 specific events which gives the Speaker the right to open the process - suspended from parliament for at least 2 weeks, any conviction for false expenses claims, any custodial sentence.
 
Back
Top Bottom