A Conservative former minister has avoided a suspension after Tory MPs backed a government-sanctioned amendment to stop it in a Commons vote, despite anger at a decision Labour claim will inflict “enduring damage” upon parliament’s reputation.
Owen Paterson was facing a 30-day suspension from the House for breaching lobbying rules over his paid consultancy work on behalf of two companies.
In a statement released before the vote, a Number 10 spokesman said: “This isn’t about one case but providing members of parliament from all political parties with the right to a fair hearing.
More on Conservatives
Related Topics:
“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.”
Sky News also saw a letter from Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg urging Conservative MPs to support the amendment, which was tabled by senior Tory Andrea Leadsom.
Opening the debate in the Commons, Mr Rees-Mogg said concerns over the investigation into Mr Paterson had become “too numerous to ignore”.
Image: Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom leaves Downing Street, London, after a National Security Council meeting. Pic: PA
The Commons leader claimed he came “not to defend” Mr Paterson but to “consider the process by which he has been tried”.
He added: “It is not for me to judge him, others have done that, but was the process a fair one?”
Labour hit out at the move, accusing the PM of encouraging ministers to “vote for a return to the worst of the 1990s sleaze culture”.
Shadow Commons leader Thangam Debbonaire said: “If today the amendment passes or if the motion falls entirely, it sends the message that when we don’t like the rules, we just break the rules – when someone breaks the rules, we just change the rules.”
She added: “The enduring damage that this would do to Parliament’s reputation is something that none of us should be prepared to consider.”
The issue was raised at Prime Minister’s Questions, with Mr Johnson defending the government’s stance.
“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 natural justice, our procedures in this House allow for proper appeal,” he told MPs.
“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,” she said.
“It is one rule for them and one rule for the rest of us.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:30
‘When they break the rules, they remake them’
Referring to the case of Delyn MP Rob Roberts, who was found by an independent panel earlier this year to have sexually harassed a member of his staff, Ms Rayner said: “They can’t change the rules to stop sexual harassment, but they can change the rules to allow cash for access.”
Now that the amendment has been passed, a nine-person committee with a Conservative majority and led by Tory ex-cabinet minister John Whittingdale will review the current standards system and reconsider the case against Mr Paterson.
Following a two-year investigation, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, said Mr Paterson had breached rules prohibiting paid advocacy by making multiple approaches to government departments and ministers for two companies.
The North Shropshire MP was found to have “repeatedly used his privileged position” to benefit Randox, a clinical diagnostics company, and Lynn’s Country Foods, a meat processor and distributor.
Mr Paterson earns more than £110,000 per year in total for his consultancy roles for the two companies.
The allegations against Mr Paterson, who was environment secretary from 2012 to 2014, relate to his conduct between October 2016 and February 2020.
A Commons committee, including four Tory MPs, supported Ms Stone’s findings and recommended Mr Paterson should be suspended from the Commons for a month.
But Mr Paterson accused Ms Stone of admitting to him she “made up her mind” before the allegations were put to him and claimed none of his 17 witnesses were interviewed.
In a lengthy statement, in which he declared he was “not guilty”, the 65-year-old also said he was raising serious issues about food contamination in his contact with officials.
And he claimed the investigation “undoubtedly played a major role” in his wife, Rose Paterson, taking her own life in June last year.
A suspension from the Commons has to be approved by MPs, hence Wednesday’s vote.
If MPs had approved the suspension, Mr Paterson would have been subject to a recall petition.
This could have seen a by-election triggered in his constituency if more than 10% of local voters signed the petition.
Anyone feeling emotionally distressed or suicidal can call Samaritans for help on 116 123 or email jo@samaritans.org in the UK. In the US, call the Samaritans branch in your area or 1 (800) 273-TALK
Doctors in England planning to go on strike in the run-up to Christmas are considering a new offer from the government to end the long-running dispute.
Resident doctors, formerly junior doctors, will walk out from 7am on 17 December until 7am on 22 December.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting has appealed to doctors to accept the government’s latest package.
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it will consult members by surveying them online on whether or not the deal from the government is enough to call off next week’s walkout.
The poll will close on Monday – just two days before the five-day strike is set to start.
Image: The number of people in hospital with flu in England is at a record level for this time of year. File pic: PA
The union said the new offer includes new legislation to ensure UK medical graduates are prioritised for speciality training roles.
It also includes an increase in the number of speciality training posts over the next three years – from 1,000 to 4,000 – with more to start in 2026.
Funding for mandatory Royal College examination and membership fees for resident doctors is also part of the deal.
It does not address resident doctors’ demand for a 26% salary rise over the next few years to make up for the erosion in their pay in real terms since 2008 – this is on top of a 28.9% increase they have had over the last three years.
Monterosa
This content is provided by Monterosa, which may be using cookies and other technologies.
To show you this content, we need your permission to use cookies.
You can use the buttons below to amend your preferences to enable Monterosa cookies or to allow those cookies just once.
You can change your settings at any time via the Privacy Options.
Unfortunately we have been unable to verify if you have consented to Monterosa cookies.
To view this content you can use the button below to allow Monterosa cookies for this session only.
Mr Streeting warned a resident doctors’ strike over Christmas would have a “much different degree of risk” than previous walkouts.
It coincides with pressures facing the NHS, with health chiefs raising concerns over a “tidal wave” of illness and a “very nasty strain of flu”.
A new strain of the flu virus is thought to be much more infectious than previous strains and has already led to a record number of patients needing urgent hospital care.
The union’s mandate to strike is set to expire shortly, but Mr Streeting has offered to extend it to allow the medics to take action later in January if they reject his offer.
He called the union’s decision not to take it up “inexplicable”.
Last week, NHS England chief executive Sir Jim Mackey branded the decision by doctors to strike as “something that feels cruel” and which is “calculated to cause mayhem at a time when the service is really pulling all the stops out to try and avoid that and keep people safe”.
BMA resident doctors committee chair Dr Jack Fletcher said the latest government offer “is the result of thousands of resident doctors showing that they are prepared to stand up for their profession and its future”.
“It should not have taken strike action, but make no mistake: it was strike action that got us this far,” he said.
“We have forced the government to recognise the scale of the problems and to respond with measures on training numbers and prioritisation.
“However, this offer does not increase the overall number of doctors working in England and does nothing to restore pay for doctors, which remains well within the government’s power to do.”
Polish lawmakers have doubled down on crypto regulation rejected by President Karol Nawrocki, deepening tensions between the president and Prime Minister Donald Tusk.
Polska2050, part of the ruling coalition in the Sejm — Poland’s lower house of parliament — reintroduced the extensive crypto bill on Tuesday, just days after Nawrocki vetoed an identical bill.
The bill’s backers, including Adam Gomoła — a member of Poland2050 — called Bill 2050 an “improved” successor to the vetoed Bill 1424, but government spokesman Adam Szłapka reportedly declared that “not even a comma” had been changed.
The division over Poland’s crypto bill comes amid the rollout of the European Union’s Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) across member states ahead of a July 2026 compliance deadline for EU crypto businesses.
Critics say Bill 2050 is “exactly same bill”
The new version of Poland’s draft crypto bill provides an 84-page-long document that essentially replicates the original Bill 1424, aiming to designate the Polish Financial Supervision Authority as the country’s primary crypto asset market regulator.
He also mocked Tusk’s claim that the president’s earlier veto was tied to the alleged involvement of the “Russian mafia,” saying: “The bill is perfect, and anyone who thinks otherwise is funded by Putin.”
Government spokesman Szłapka reportedly claimed that Nawrocki will likely not veto the proposed bill this time, following a classified security briefing in parliament last week and “now has full knowledge” of the implications on national security.
The issue with MiCA: Local versus centralized EU oversight
Poland’s debate over its crypto bill sets an important precedent for implementing the EU-wide MiCA regulation, as the proposed legislation would place responsibility for market supervision on the local financial regulator.
The issue is particularly significant amid calls from some member states for more centralized MiCA supervision under the Paris-based European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
In October, the Bank of France urged the EU to give the ESMA direct supervisory powers, warning that a fragmented approach to oversight could undermine the bloc’s financial sovereignty.
Notably, Polish economist Krzysztof Piech — a prominent critic of Poland’s proposed crypto bill — has questioned the need for the local legislation, noting that MiCA protections will take effect in 2026.
While local reports suggest that Nawrocki may not veto the bill this time, there is also speculation that his office has been presented with an “alternative” draft aimed at creating more favorable market conditions. The proposed alternative is reportedly designed to align with the EU-wide MiCA framework and remove direct oversight from the local regulator.
Norway rules that a digital krone is unnecessary for now, highlighting its strong payment rails and the uncertain benefits of both retail and wholesale CBDCs.