All that talk of a ‘gentler politics’ that that followed the death of Sir David Amess didn’t last very long. The resolution to ‘disagree honourably’ without imputing the basest of motives to those with whom we disagreed, certainly didn’t survive Wednesday’s debate. The name-calling and gesticulating was vile, and I’m very sad to say that some of my correspondence has been little better.
The parliamentary disciplinary system has the three parts: an investigation by the Commissioner; the scrutiny of her report by the Select Committee: and a debate by the Commons on the Committee’s findings and recommended sanction. The Process is owned by the Commons and its members have every right to explore and question the report, to reject or amend its recommendations.
Nevertheless, Wednesday was the first time we’ve actually done so. What was different this time?
The difference was that this was the first time that the defendant has vigorously denied the charges. On all the other occasions in recent years the accused has confessed, apologised and begged for mercy. The system appeared shocked, even affronted, that the accused might resist: there seemed something rather sinister when the Committee Chairman broke parliamentary convention and addresses Mr Patterson directly at the end of the debate : “this could have been very different if you had come to us and said ‘I am sorry, I was trying to do the right thing but I got it wrong’…”
He appeared to be unable to comprehend that the accused believed that he had done nothing wrong at all and that, on the contrary, he had acted entirely properly and in the public interest.
Now, the inquisitorial method adopted by the Commissioner and the Committee may well be satisfactory for the uncontested confessions that we had hitherto experienced, but where the interpretation of the facts is so vigorously contested, a more rigorous process, where witnesses are cross-examined, would be appropriate. The Standing Orders provide for the Commissioner and the Committee to adopt such a procedure. They chose not to, but no explanation was had as to why they had not done so. In my opinion it was therefore proper for the Commons to consider whether the accused had been given a fair hearing.
The Committee acts to a large extent as a jury. Jurors have to attend the whole of a trial, they may not absent themselves when attendance is inconvenient. As I pointed out in the debate on Wednesday, when Commons special standing committees sit on private bills hearing evidence they must attend the entire proceeding. In this case however, Mr Paterson’s ‘jury’ adopted another approach: at the three formal sessions on their report, different members were present, barely 50% of them attended all three meetings. Four of the eleven members who sat for the final meeting had not even attended the session in which Mr Paterson was heard by the Committee.
I signed the amendment which left the Committee’s recommendation unresolved until a further review has examined the process. Had I been presented with the report, to accept or reject it, as would have been the case next week had Mr Paterson not resigned, I would have voted it down.
Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum