Category: Parliament

Keir Starmer – 2021 Article on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

A section of the article written by Keir Starmer in the Guardian on 3 November 2021.

I am sick of people skirting around calling this out for what it is: corruption. Paterson was receiving money from a private company to ask questions on its behalf. Roberts was found to have made repeated and unwanted sexual advances toward a young staffer. Both of them should be gone – neither are fit to serve as MPs. Their continued presence in the Tory party is scandalous. It will further undermine public faith in politics at a time when we should be trying to restore decency and honesty.

But the rot starts at the top. We have a prime minister whose name is synonymous with sleaze, dodgy deals and hypocrisy. This is the man who allows his ministers to breach with impunity the codes that govern public life; who thinks it should be one rule for him and his chums, another for everyone else. With his every action he signals to his MPs: do what you like.

03/11/2021
Peter Bottomley – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

The speech made by Sir Peter Bottomley, the Father of the House, in the Commons on 3 November 2021.

I do not think anyone enjoys taking part in this debate. Were the Government’s motion to be considered unamended, I would vote for it. Had the second amendment been selected, I would vote for it. I will not vote for the first amendment.

I was on the Standards Committee up to 2003, when I withdrew on a point of practice, rather than principle, that the House, the Speaker and the then Labour Government had not supported Elizabeth Filkin. I am not going to change my practice now. I am one of the people, probably like most people in this House, who has read the full report. I have read what the chief vet said about the milk allegation. I have read what my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has said, and to whom I join in party sympathy for what has happened in his life. I recognise that the involvement of Randox with Aintree and with him, and his wife’s role at Aintree, meant that he would be close to a business, and I recognise that much of what he said is uncontested by the commissioner and by the Standards Committee.

The issue is whether he would have done better, as I think was possibly indicated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in Prime Minister’s questions, to have said that he held one view, the commissioner and the Committee held another, that he now recognises that what they felt was reasonable, and he is sorry to have a had a view that has caused this upset and these difficulties to all of us. I still hope that were I in that situation I would have had the sense, basically, to accept that there are views other than my own and that I should not always see things with my own justification rather than in the way people outside this House, and some inside this House, would see them.

On the decision as to whether the contents of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) are correct, I do recognise that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) said, the 2003 recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life is worth looking at. But that was 18 years ago, and this is a serious problem. It should have been brought back for consideration by the House or by senior Members of this House during the past 18 years. I am happy to bring it forward now as a way of changing what should be the normal process of upholding the Standards Committee’s endorsement of the standards commissioner’s advice to the Committee.

I refer to the debate in 2010 when Jack Straw was the Justice Secretary and Sir George Young, as he then was, contributed for my party, as did I. We chose the system we are now using. If we want to consider changing it, we should do it in a proper way. I do not regard this as appropriate now.

03/11/2021
Caroline Lucas – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

The comments made by Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP for Brighton Pavilion, on 3 November 2021.

Imagine being convicted of an offence but instead of serving a sentence, your mates *arrange* a review of the justice system to let you off scot-free.

That’s what Tories are trying to do. It’s a shameful undermining of an independent system of scrutiny to save one of their own.

03/11/2021
Thangam Debbonaire – 2021 Comments on the Personal Conduct of Owen Paterson

The comments made by Thangam Debbonaire, the Labour MP for Bristol West, in the House of Commons on 3 November 2021.

It gives me no pleasure to be standing here responding to a standards motion, although I now feel that what I am responding to is the Leader of the House moving the amendment, rather than the motion.

I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the standards commissioner and her team, not only for their diligent work in carrying out this inquiry, but for all the other work that they do to actively promote high standards across the House. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who chairs the Standards Committee, and all the other Committee members who contributed to this thorough investigation.

Since 1695, there have been rules on paid advocacy. A motion passed on 2 May 1695 said that

“the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever…in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour”.

If, today, the amendment passes or the motion falls entirely, it sends the message—to paraphrase my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the deputy leader of the Labour party ,who said this better than me earlier today—that when we do not like the rules, we just break the rules; and when someone breaks the rules, we just change the rules. It turns the clock back to before 1695. Such actions were not acceptable then and they are not acceptable now.

Dame Margaret Hodge

Does my hon. Friend agree that the only logical explanation for the action by Government Ministers and Back Benchers today is not necessarily the recommendations of the report that we are considering today, but that there may be many others in line to come forward that will cause even greater embarrassment to those on the Government Benches?

Thangam Debbonaire

I thank my right hon. Friend, who is a distinguished Member of this House, for raising that point. It is hard to work out why this is happening. In fact, I am going to skip ahead to a later point in my speech. As you know, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House stands up in front of us every week. If he wanted a debate on changing the rules and changing the system, he has had that opportunity every single week, but I have yet to hear him mention it until today, when we are considering a live case.

In this case, the Committee concluded:

“This is an egregious case of paid advocacy”.

It said that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)

“repeatedly…used his privileged position…to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant”,

and that this

“has brought the House into disrepute.”

A lot has been said in the media about the standards process over the last week, but since 1695 this House has only ever strengthened the system. The Library and the appendix to the code of conduct can provide a timeline and details for any Government Members who are interested. The introduction of a House of Commons Standards Commissioner in 1995 and the Standards Committee in 2013 were key features of strengthening the system. It has worked well and has gone a long way to restoring public trust in the House. It is vital that the integrity of the standards system is maintained. In fact, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended just this week that the system needs to be strengthened, not weakened. But no—Government Members seem to want to rip up the entire system. Our Committees, which are cross-party, carry out their inquiries independently of influence from this House and that must continue to be the case.

Under the code of conduct, all of us are expected to adhere to the ethical standards of the seven principles of public life. It seems that some Government Members need a reminder that those principles are: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. That expectation is good for us all. If someone in this place falls short, there has to be a system in place to hold MPs and other public officials to account. That is our standards system. It is a standards system that our Parliament voted on and approved. Just changing the system when somebody does not like a result is not acceptable.

If the Government wish to debate the merits of the standards system, the Leader of the House can get up tomorrow and schedule time to do so. Some Government Members who have signed the amendment are Chairs of House Committees and could have initiated reviews or made proposals, but they did not. I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but today there is a motion before us about a report and its recommendations. It is absolutely in order for Back Benchers to table an amendment, but it is quite astonishing that the Government seem to have endorsed and whipped it.

Shamefully, it seems that Tory MPs have been backed by their Government to hijack this debate, which should have been about endorsing a Committee report. The Government are sending the message that paid advocacy—MPs selling their offices and position as an elected representative—is fine. I am afraid that some, including Government Members from the Dispatch Box today, are claiming that this is a process without an appeal, but the commissioner reviews cases, makes recommendations and refers them to the Standards Committee, which is cross-party, with a majority of members from the Government Benches, as well as lay members with expertise; they decide whether to approve the recommendations, and we debate and vote on them.

Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire had access to legal representation. His character witness statements are in the report and were duly considered. As some of my colleagues have pointed out to me, if everybody who wanted to give oral evidence to a court of law was just accepted, where would that get us? Is that really what we are saying—that there should be a system whereby if I want to give evidence, I get to say what I like?

The Committee process is, in effect, a process of appeal. The Committee upheld the commissioner’s report and recommendations, and so must this House. For the public to maintain their trust in us, it is crucial that our independent standards procedure is not undermined or, worse still, systematically dismantled all together, as I fear is happening now. Is that what the Leader of the House wants his political legacy to be—undermining Parliament and our MPs even further? Does he fully understand the potential consequences of doing this?

Standards are important; they matter. The commissioner and the Committee took careful consideration of a very large amount of evidence. It took a long time to read, and I strongly suspect that some Members did not read it. The Committee recommended the sanction on the motion before us. It would be extraordinary for this House to overturn that independent, cross-party recommendation.

I hate to remind the Leader of the House, but just last month Government Members said that they could not possibly support retrospective rule change; and yet, here we are. In the middle of a case, Tory MPs—yes, I am going to state that, because it is only Tory MPs who have signed this amendment—are trying to change the rules. It is a serious case of paid advocacy against the rules that are clearly set out. The public rightly expect us to abide by the rules and to be held to account. We must vote to do so today.

We cannot have a return to the Tory sleaze of the 1990s. Members and the public will remember cash for questions and those Tory scandals of the 1990s. This Tory dilution of our standards procedures sends a terrible message to the public and our constituents that it is one rule for certain MPs and another for everyone else. The enduring damage that that would do to Parliament’s reputation is something that none of us should be prepared to consider.

03/11/2021
Graham Brady – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by Graham Brady, the Conservative MP for Altrincham and Sale West, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

I will be brief because I know that many others want to pay their respects and tributes. It is right that I, as the chairman of the 1922 Committee, should pay tribute to David, who was a dedicated and effective Back-Bench Member of Parliament, but I also want to say a few words today because I had the privilege of his friendship for the past 24 years. I am deeply touched by the tributes that have been paid from across the House, including the moving tributes from the Prime Minister and from the Leader of the Opposition. I am also pleased to follow the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer), and my constituency neighbour the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who was one of the first people to get in touch with me on Friday to offer his condolences. That was much appreciated.

We have all had so many messages of condolence from constituents and others since we heard the terrible news. I think that people across the country could sense the goodness, the kindness and the decency of the man we have lost. It is wonderful that we have heard tributes to David’s great achievements in politics, but it is also wonderful that so many references have been made, right from the start, to the joy that he brought into all our lives and those of so many others. He clearly enjoyed the House of Commons and politics, and he loved meeting people. I hope that that is something that will stay with us.

My recollection of David, over the past few years especially, is of seeing him coming towards me in Portcullis House and seeing his infectious smile. I knew that he was looking forward to starting a conversation. He would say, “What are they doing now, Graham? Why are they doing this?” I will miss that. Like others, I will still be looking out for him.

Finally, on a serious point, this is the most open and accessible Parliament of any major country in the world, and the right tribute to David must be that it remains so, and that while we take sensible precautions, we stay open and continue to connect with our constituents as he did so brilliantly.

22/10/2021
Kim Leadbeater – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP for Batley and Spen, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

I spent a lot of time over the weekend thinking about what to say if I were called today—and indeed whether to say anything at all, because I did not know David personally. It has been a traumatic few days for many people, and none more so than David’s family and friends; it is they who remain at the forefront of my mind this afternoon. Sadly, I know from my own all too similar experience that in reality there is nothing that anyone can say to make things all right for them—but nor is it any use to stay silent, so I welcome this opportunity to pay tribute to someone who was clearly a well-respected and much-loved colleague to many people in this place.

For reasons that I would never wish on any other Member of this House, or indeed anyone, I have a unique perspective on what those closest to David are going through. I send them love, support and solidarity from me, my parents, our family and the people of Batley and Spen.

I have blocked out much of what happened when Jo was murdered, but I remember very clearly the moment when I took the phone call saying that she had been attacked. I remember physically trembling, and the visceral pain that overtook me. It breaks my heart to think that another family have had to experience that phone call and the nightmare that follows. It is a rollercoaster of deep trauma that no one should have to experience. I also know that David’s family will still be in utter shock, as I know many Members are, but I hope that at some point they will be able to hear at least some of the beautiful and very funny tributes that have been paid to him today, and that that will provide a morsel of comfort amid their pain.

I cannot talk about David on a personal level—as I say, I did not know him—but from what I have heard, he strikes me as the sort of MP I might well have come across in the coming months and ended up going for a cuppa with, to hear his thoughts on his work on a children’s Parliament, on animal welfare or on getting more support for people with learning disabilities. We would have been two Back-Bench MPs from different parties and different parts of the country discussing issues close to our hearts, and I imagine it would have been a lot of fun. Sadly, that day will never come.

I know that wider discussions will now take place about the safety of MPs, the awful abuse and intimidation that we face, the nature of political discourse and how we can deal with the evils of terrorism. It is quite right that they do, but today is about David and his family, along with his staff, his colleagues and the community he served so well; the service he gave; and the support we should show all of them in the coming days, weeks and months. It is up to us to make sure that we do that, because I know more than most that they will need it, and the powerful difference that it will make to them.

22/10/2021
Roger Gale – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for North Thanet, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

We have heard magnificent tributes from the Prime Minister, from the Leader of the Opposition, from David’s Essex colleagues and from many Opposition Members. I think we are all grateful for that, and the tone of the House is as it can be at its best.

I want to spend just a couple of minutes speaking on behalf of the remnants of the class of ’83. Of the 100 of us who came in, sadly only two remain with continuous service, along with another three who have come back after leaving the House briefly. We had all hoped and expected that in the fullness of time, once my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) had surrendered his position, by which time David would have been a very old man—[Laughter]—he would have become the Father of the House. He would have made a magnificent successor to my hon. Friend. Sadly and cruelly, that has been denied us.

The many of us on both sides of the House who had the privilege of working with David on his campaigns—on foxhunting, when campaigning on it was unfashionable; on the reunification of Cyprus; on Iran; on pensions for expat UK citizens; and on a whole range of other issues—know just how doughty a campaigner he was. That is clearly why he was so loved in his constituency.

Mr Speaker said at the weekend that David’s death had left a void in this House. He was absolutely right, and there is another void: in David’s family home. I hope that David’s wife Julia and his children will take comfort from the fact that across this House there is clearly nothing but affection for his memory. That must speak volumes for the man whose life we celebrate today.

22/10/2021
Stephen Timms – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by Stephen Timms, the Labour MP for East Ham, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

We have rightly been reminded of David’s enthusiastic advocacy for the constituencies that he represented, but he was also an enthusiast for the London Borough of Newham, where he was born and grew up; where he attended the excellent St Bonaventure’s Catholic school, which he stayed in touch with for the rest of his life; where he supported West Ham United football club; and where his mother lived until her death five years ago, as we have been reminded, at the age of 104. I heard over the weekend from somebody who was in the sixth form at St Bonaventure’s with David but who, unlike David, supported the Labour party. He told me that the politics teacher, Mr Cunningham, predicted that David was going to be a Conservative MP. He also told me that in a period when he was not able to attend quite a lot of the politics lessons, David very carefully wrote out all of his notes so that his friend could copy those notes afterwards. Kindness was evident at that early stage as well.

David stood for election to the council in Newham in 1974 and 1978 and for Parliament in Newham North West in 1979, before finding more promising opportunities further east, but notwithstanding party differences, his supportive interest in Newham remained. As council leader from 1990, I pressed the Conservative Government to bring the channel tunnel rail link through a station in Stratford. David was our unwavering ally on the Government side. Singlehandedly, he made the campaign cross-party, and that was crucial to its success, leading to London 2012 and the regeneration that is under way at the moment.

Of course, David was not initially seen as a friend by my Newham Council colleagues, who have not seen a Conservative elected for 30 years. We all remembered David dashing our 1992 general election hopes by holding Basildon, but we invited him to our town hall celebration when the Stratford campaign succeeded. I was not quite sure how that was going to go, but David won over everybody with a beautifully judged speech. Newham has lost a great friend.

David was accessible to his constituents. Tragically, he has now given his life. We will rightly reflect on what more we can do to stop that happening again—I wonder if we might ask the police to review our appointment lists ahead of each surgery, for example—but we must not give up on the accessibility of Members of Parliament. If we do, the sponsors of those who attacked David and who attacked me will have succeeded. That must not happen.

22/10/2021
John Whittingdale – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP for Maldon, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

I first met David Amess nearly 40 years ago, shortly after his historic election as MP for Basildon, the image of which, the picture of his smiling face, came to symbolise the Conservative victory under Margaret Thatcher’s leadership. He won because he embodied all that was best about Essex man: he was patriotic, he came from a working-class background, he was devoted to his family and he was passionately independent. I got to know him when I was working for Margaret Thatcher in No. 10 Downing Street. He adored her. He was absolutely furious when she was removed from office and, indeed, remained furious long after. In 2013, he held an Adjournment debate on her legacy, following her death. She, in turn, hugely valued him.

David championed many causes, as others have said, but most of all he loved his constituency and the people he was so proud to represent. My constituency is just about 30 minutes away from his, and a number of times I spoke for him at events and he spoke for me. The huge respect and affection in which he was held was always obvious. He loved meeting people and he made sure that he spoke to every single person at whatever gathering he was present. As has been referred to, it became a joke that for his first 14 years he would make sure that, in every question and every speech, he referenced Basildon in ringing tones, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) demonstrated in his contribution.

After David’s election to Southend, his campaign for Southend to become a city was mentioned at every opportunity. It is well known that he was a great animal lover and devoted to his dogs. Even when seeking support for his French bulldog, Vivienne, in this year’s Westminster Dog of the Year competition—as the Prime Minister referenced—the reason he gave as to why we should vote for Vivienne as Westminster dog of the year was that she is an enthusiastic supporter of Southend becoming a city. [Laughter.] So when, in 2012, Chelmsford, as the county town of Essex, was granted city status, David took the news reasonably well. [Laughter.] I can say, on behalf of my constituents in Chelmsford, how delighted we are that Essex will now have two cities.

I represent a part of the Chelmsford local authority area, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) represents the city itself. She is unable to be here today, as she is on ministerial duties abroad, but she asked me to say on her behalf how much she appreciated the kindness and gentle wisdom that David typically showed to her and other new Essex MPs when they were first elected. I also join her in paying tribute to the work that David did for all of us to improve our hospitals across mid and south Essex, a legacy that will continue to benefit hundreds of thousands of Essex residents.

David was, quite simply, the best of us. All of us are still in shock but our hearts go out to his family, and I hope that people listen to their words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford spoke powerfully about the abuse that particularly Members of Parliament—but not just MPs; a lot of other public servants—suffer from online in social media. I have been heartened by the huge number of messages that I have had from my constituents and others, first, to express condolences and, secondly, just to express their appreciation of the work that we do in this place. I like to think—and I strongly believe—that those horrible, aggressive voices that sometimes seem to dominate social media are not representative of the views of the vast majority of people, who share all the qualities and would respond to the appeal of David’s family that we should show each other kindness and love, and that that should be his lasting legacy.

22/10/2021
Yvette Cooper – 2021 Speech in the House of Commons on David Amess

The speech made by Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2021.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will just briefly join the tributes that we have heard.

Sir David Amess asked all of us about our families, and we now send our condolences to his family, not just from all of us but from all our families, who will very much be feeling the need to reach out to them at this difficult time. We pay tribute, too, to Sir David’s staff, who went to work on Friday morning to try to help his constituents, like all our staff do for every one of our constituents, and had to face the unimaginable.

Every one of us has a story of things that we worked with David on. There were so many different issues, but for me it was the work we did together on amendments to help child refugees reunite with their families, which was something he felt strongly about. You could never predict what issue he would feel strongly about next, but then you would look back and think that it made absolute sense that that was what he was championing, because kindness, compassion and helping others were so often at the heart of it.

David’s office is just above mine, so I would often chat to him while walking to vote and coming across here. Walking across today to come and pay tribute to him, I really felt it, knowing that I would not walk with him again and chat about our families. Coming out of the lift to David’s office, you could never get wrong which floor you were on, because, as many will know, there is, hanging on his door, a giant cardboard cut-out of a knight in shining armour with the helmet tilted in a jaunty way just looking at you. A knight in shining armour is what David will have been to so many of his constituents. Around the corner, there is a box of nodding reindeer decorations, ready to be spread across the corridors. That was what David would do at Christmas time: spread friendship and joy. If you stand by that knight today, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will also hear the ethereal sound of birdsong, for so many reasons, for David.

Jo Cox said to us that we

“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]

David showed us how to do that, because while he had disagreements with pretty much every one of us, he also had the unerring instinct of finding what it was he had in common with each and every one of us. When we face awful things happening and extremists try to divide us, we know the most powerful thing in our armoury against them and in defence of democracy is the powerful words said on all sides of the House in unity, in defence of democracy and, now, in respect for David.

22/10/2021