Response on House of Commons Committee on Standards and Amendment

Thank you for contacting me about the House of Commons Committee on Standards and my amendment last week.

I firmly believe that MPs should uphold the highest standards in public life. There must be tough and robust checks on Members to ensure they adhere to these standards. It is important that there is an effective process to scrutinise Members’ behaviour and, if necessary, to sanction those who fail to uphold high standards.

This process must also, however, be fair to the Member, enabling them to defend themselves, be legally represented where necessary, and it must offer a process of appeal. This is not currently the case for investigations into MPs that are outside the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) that as Leader of the Commons in 2017-2019, I led and set up on a cross party basis. The ICGS closely follows the laws of natural justice and mirrors the justice that is available to those in other walks of life. It carries the support of the House. During my time as Leader, MPs of all parties expressed concerns about the lack of equivalence in the non ICGS investigation process that is currently in place.

The amendment that I put forward sought a review of the investigatory process into non ICGS complaints (such as those into paid lobbying), and my hope in doing so was for a review to take place that would bring it into line with the robust processes we have for the ICGS.

I am very sorry that the individual case relating to Owen Paterson was linked to the amendment, and I sincerely regret that this was interpreted by so many as an attempt to ‘let him off’. This would not have been the case - my amendment would not have changed any rules, or enabled his case to be scrapped. The amendment made clear that the proposed select committee (that would be politically balanced) would hear from Owen Paterson but that unless the process in his specific case was found to have been ‘unjust’, then the report from the Committee on Standards would come back to the House for a vote within three months.

In hindsight I fully accept that the review should have been proposed on a different occasion, and not when a specific case was under consideration, and it was a mistake to bring forward the amendment.

Ministers will bring forward more detailed plans on the prospects for a review once there have been cross-party discussions.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.