Owen Paterson: This is how our MPs voted

Conservative MPs this week voted not to suspend Tory colleague Owen Paterson after he was found guilty of paid lobbying.
Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire.Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire.
Owen Paterson, former MP for North Shropshire.

The Commons' cross-party standards committee recommended a six-week ban from Parliament for Mr Paterson after it found the North Shropshire MP repeatedly lobbied ministers and officials for two companies, Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods, paying him more than £100,000 per year.

The commissioner for parliamentary standards found that he approached and met officials at the Food Standards Agency and ministers at the Department for International Development on behalf of the companies a number of times, which were “serious breaches” of lobbying rules.

Read More
Bassetlaw MP cleared of breaching ministerial code of conduct following inquiry ...
Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A week after the report was released, the government put forward a motion on Wednesday, November 3, to overturn Paterson’s suspension, the report from the committee and to change the system for investigating breaches of standards.

Here is how our MPs voted in Parliament on Wednesday:

Brendan Clarke-Smith (Con), Bassetlaw – no vote

Alexander Stafford (Con), Rother Valley – no vote

Mark Fletcher (Con), Bolsover – no vote

MPs voted 250 to 232 in favour of the amendments, however, Mr Paterson resigned yesterday (November 4) following a backlash.

No date has been set for the by-election in North Shropshire.

Mr Stafford is at COP26 in Glasgow and did not participate in the vote. He said: “Since the vote on Wednesday, the Government have already listened to concerns raised about the vote and accepted that there must be cross-party support for any changes made to the standards system.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

"There is a strong feeling across all the political parties that this case highlights that there is a need for an appeals process, but there is equally a strong feeling that this should not be based on a single case or applied retrospectively.”

In these confusing and worrying times, local journalism is more vital than ever. Thanks to everyone who helps us ask the questions that matter by taking out a subscription or buying a paper. We stand together. Sam Jackson, editor.