Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Paula Barker Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing this debate.

It saddens me that we find ourselves here today having to debate the consequences of the decision that the majority of those on the Government Benches took last week regarding the former Member for North Shropshire. Such a debate should be unnecessary, but sadly, due to the actions of last week, the consequences beyond this place are very clear: further erosion of public trust in our politics and its representatives, a real anger that it is one rule for the hard-working majority and another for politicians, and a growing sense of apathy that weakens our democracy and our institutions and makes us all poorer.

I have since wondered what my own constituents would think—indeed, do think, because many have contacted me—such as those facing fire and rehire, those struggling to make ends meet on universal credit, and those waiting on access to decent social care. The adage that yesterday’s news will be today’s chip paper will not hold true. So long as this Prime Minister remains in place, I fear that we will return to this dark place again and again. The substantial majority that the Government won at the last general election does not make them beyond reproach, it does not make the Prime Minister beyond reproach, and it does not make any hon. or right hon. Member in this place beyond reproach. The younger, newer intake on the Government Benches probably understand that. Like me, they probably thought they had entered a 1990s-time warp last week. When it came to the crunch, the old boys’ network reigned supreme. Frankly, I am fed up with this place lurching from one scandal to another. So too are my constituents, who expect better. Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

In my opinion, we should prioritise two things, along with those outlined by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we should make corruption in public office a criminal offence that applies to any MP who falls short of the standards expected of them. Secondly, we should ban any MP from having a second job, unless that is required to maintain professional accreditations.

From where I come from and for the people I represent, an MP’s salary is more than enough to live on and, frankly, it is a full-time job if we are doing it properly. If the salary is not enough for the privileged class of MPs such as the likes of the former Member for North Shropshire—on any of the Benches but particularly the Government Benches—then to quote Lord Tebbit, “Get on your bike,” find another job and leave, because no one is forcing you to stay. If we do not all act, I fear that public hostility towards all Members will only get worse. After all, it only takes a few rotten apples to spoil the whole barrel. In the public’s eyes, everyone in this place is in the barrel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is a very interesting response, because it still does not answer the question. The reality is—[Interruption.] No, with great respect, if we look at appendix 2 of the Committee’s report, there were 17 witness statements on Mr Paterson’s behalf set out in rigorous detail. In relation to milk and food safety, there was witness evidence from the chief vet, National Milk Laboratories and the former chair of the Food Standards Agency. That confirmed that within the framework of exemptions for Members’ actions in the public interest, the former Member’s actions made milk safer. On the question of the contamination of a ham product, Professor Chris Elliott, in unchallenged evidence, made it clear that what the former Member revealed was the worst case that that professor had seen in 35 years. On both matters, those witnesses’ genuinely expert opinions were not followed in establishing the facts and in justification of the former Member’s defence.

On the question of natural justice and of witness statements and evidence, it has been established over and again in the courts that every court or tribunal is obliged to accept and follow unchallenged witness evidence.

[Paula Barker]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Sir William Cash]

No, I do not have time and we need to move on.

It is established in the recent Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme that a judge must be—and now will be, as far as I can judge—embedded in the procedure. An investigatory panel would be set up only infrequently, in cases of serious contested issues of fact that would not and could not be properly decided, and where the test of natural justice would be failed unless the Member was given the opportunity to call witnesses and/or to cross-examine witnesses supporting the complaint.

That is made abundantly clear by the 2003 Committee report that I have already referred to—that Committee actually had eight Lib Dem and Labour members and only three Conservatives—so why a panel was never set up is a complete mystery. I heard the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) say that he was a stickler for parliamentary procedure and due process in Parliament, so why did he decline to invoke the natural justice provisions, including examination of witnesses, under his own Standing Orders and, furthermore, consistent with the tests of fairness set out by the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege?

Not only does every disciplinary committee in the land and other courts of justice and tribunals of every kind have rules of natural justice, but they have the right to appeal to the courts for judicial review. Members of Parliament cannot do so because of article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which includes things such as equality of arms, examination of witnesses and no delay. The reality is that in this instance—in this serious, contested case—there has been a failure of natural justice.

I do not know, and now nobody will ever know, what the investigatory panel would have discovered, because it was never invoked. It is most regrettable and a deep contribution to this tragedy—it is the centre of gravity of this problem—that the rules of natural justice, which are prescribed under the Standing Orders, were not applied. I stand by that, because it is evident on the face of the facts and the law.