In surveys of the most trusted professions, politicians typically rank below bankers and journalists. Yet the great majority of MPs are scrupulous in their conduct in public office and there are stringent rules governing their financial interests.
The gulf between the reputation and the reality of parliamentarians’ probity can only be closed if the system is rigorously enforced. A report by Lord Evans of Weardale, chairman of the independent committee on standards in public life, recommends that politicians with “poor ethical standards” face tougher sanctions. And MPs will consider on Wednesday whether to suspend Owen Paterson, the former environment secretary, for breaches of parliamentary rules. It would be a severe and unforced error if, heedless of Lord Evans’s strictures, they failed to do this.
A separate report last week by the Commons standards committee considered allegations that Mr Paterson, a Conservative MP since 1997, had lobbied for two companies for which he was a paid consultant. It described Mr Paterson’s conduct as “an egregious case of paid advocacy” and concluded that he had “brought the House into disrepute”. It recommended that he be suspended from the Commons for 30 days. If this is enacted, he could face an automatic recall petition and potential by-election in his constituency of North Shropshire.
The suspension ought to be a formality. Though one of its Conservative members, Sir Bernard Jenkin, quite properly recused himself from the inquiry on the basis that he is a friend of Mr Paterson, the committee is cross-party and concerned itself with matters of procedure.
Even so, Mr Paterson has protested that he “acted properly, honestly and within the rules”, and his allies have struck back. Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, claims the system is unfair. MPs may reject the committee’s recommendation and impose instead a lesser sanction against Mr Paterson. Yet the case advanced by the committee concerning Mr Paterson’s public duties is formidable. He lobbied officials on behalf of Randox, a diagnostics company, and Lynn’s Country Foods, a processed meat company, which together paid him more than £100,000.
Advertisement
The rules are unambiguous. MPs must not directly advocate on behalf of organisations that pay them. Mr Paterson lobbied ministers and officials on numerous occasions to adopt measures that would benefit his employers. Not even his staunchest supporters dispute this. Their case is rather that he raised issues of food safety, a claim that is speculative and in any case irrelevant to the rules. The committee is politically balanced and includes seven lay members, a majority of whom recommended a suspension of greater length.
Mr Paterson has suffered greatly. His wife, Rose, took her own life last year, and Mr Paterson says that his ordeal was a factor in her suicide. Yet the committee strove to allow him every opportunity to respond to the charges and expressly stated its condolences on his bereavement.
Had Mr Paterson acknowledged that his conduct was systematically at fault and his judgment was impaired amid grievous tragedy, his ordeal would command public sympathy. He has elected instead to protest that he is more sinned against than sinning. MPs should now impose the appropriate sanctions. If they collude to dilute the rules governing standards in public life, the damage to the reputation of parliament will be enduring.
