CHRISTCHURCH MP Sir Christopher Chope said the government is “embarrassed” over its handling of sleaze charges after blocking an attempt to nod through a U-turn.
The Conservative veteran protested against the proposal, which approved the study by Owen Paterson and scrapped standard reforms without debate in the House of Commons on Monday.
Sir Christopher told the Daily Echo that it was “extremely important” that the issue was discussed as it involved an “extraordinary measure” to remove the result of a vote taken by MEPs just two weeks ago.
Following the objection, an hour-long debate has been added to the House of Commons’ agenda for Tuesday 16 November.
“All I have done is make sure we have a debate, and that is what we have later today.
“We have an hour-long debate on the question of whether we should revoke a decision adopted on 3 November, and my position is that we should not operate in this country by government decree.
“If the Folketing has voted on a provision, we should have a proper debate and an explanation from the government as to why we want to repeal it, and that is what will happen today.
“There was a kind of coziness together of people to try to suppress any public discussion or need for the government to explain itself on this issue.
“As a result of preventing it from going through again, I have ensured that there is a proper debate about it.”
Monday’s proposal was aimed at repealing the so-called Leadsom amendment, which aimed to establish a review of MPs’ standard inquiry process in an attempt to delay former Cabinet Minister Mr Paterson’s suspension for breaking lobbying rules.
The objection from the rear MP triggered a setback online, including from other politicians, such as chairman of the standard committee Chris Bryant MP.
Unfortunately, because a single Member of Parliament protested against the proposal approving the committee on the standards report on Owen Paterson, the House has still not resolved this matter. The government will have to make it as soon as possible with the allotted time if the house is not to fall into further disrepute.
– Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) November 15, 2021
“Why are people worried about it? Because they are embarrassed,” Sir Christopher said.
“There is a collective political embarrassment on the part of the government over this and with good reason, so they want to suppress the discussion.
“Obviously I will not be popular for forcing it, but we will have an hour-long debate today and the government will have to explain what its plans are to change the standard system in the future and so on, which we otherwise would “have not had.”
The proposal also sought to approve the report of the Standing Committee, which would have suspended Mr Paterson from Parliament for 30 days if he had remained a Member of Parliament.
He resigned as the Conservative MP for North Shropshire after the government’s failed attempt to delay his suspension.
Sir Christopher added: “I think it is extremely important and especially in a case which, as the proposal from the President of Parliament says, does not contradict Parliament’s normal practice, which is once a proposal has been adopted in a session. by Parliament you do not repeal it.
“What we are talking about is not just a routine. We are talking about an extraordinary measure to repeal a decision that was only taken fourteen days ago.
“Trying to smuggle it through without any debate exacerbated the crime in my opinion.
“Now we have a situation where it can be embarrassing for the government, probably will be, but the government will have to explain why it has decided to withdraw its support for the previous proposal.”
Asked about the government’s handling of the matter, Sir Christopher said: “The House of Commons, Parliament, is sovereign, so if the House of Commons adopts a proposal – we had this issue in a slightly different form when we discussed the EU exit agreement with Mrs May – it is not the government task of submitting an ex cathedra communication stating that the proposal has a nugatory effect.
“If that proposal is to be repealed, which is the proposal presented in Parliament today, fine, but we should have a debate on it, we should have an explanation, we should not have anything where the government essentially decrees a case, which is a topic for the house.
“I am concerned about the issues of natural justice in this case, which seem to have been put on hold.”