I have every sympathy with the Member for North Shropshire and his family and have no wish to make matters worse for him. I also absolutely believe him when he says he was acting in the public interest and his motives were genuine and altruistic. The difficulty is that this is not the point that the Commissioner, the Committee on Standards, and this House has to address. The point that he must address is whether his actions might have “the effect of conferring a benefit. Not the motive, the effect.
Both the Commissioner and the Committee on Standards, the latter unanimously, said that they did, and this seems to be supported by the evidence in the report. The other issue at hand here is would we be changing these rules now had this situation not occurred?
I think the clear answer is no. Having put these measures in place, in this Place ourselves it would appear to be a moving of the goalposts, purely because of a decision we do not like. I can see there are flaws in the process, I do not think that the third report sufficiently addressed the fact that the Commissioner did not insist on interviewing Mr Paterson at an early stage. Despite having given the opportunity to do so. In my view, she should have insisted. .
On the lack of appeals process, it does seem to me that the Committee on Standards or this House can and has examined the evidence, including the Committee interviewing Mr Paterson, along with his legal representatives. What concerns me most about Andrea Leadsom’s amendment is public perception that we are above the law. I’m not against a revision of the rules, but I am very much against, effectively, a retrospective changing of the rules.
I did, of course, listen carefully to the debate, but I felt I would have had difficulty in supporting this amendment in the lobbies and that is why I voted against it.
