as this and it would be good if the leader of the house of lords to listen to his very straightforward comments about what is going on today. when i was first told about this i thought it was some sort of joke. i thought we cannot possibly be serious. i expect maybe to come to a debate and it would be the usual suspects speaking on behalf of one of their pals, but not today. not today. today, we have the full force of the government whipping operation for in conservative members of parliament through this house to overturn the decision of the standards committee, and to introduce a new way of how we look and examine breaches of the rules in this house. it was almost outrageous in its suggestion.
of what is it was uncontested by the commissioner and the standards committee. the issue is whether it would have been done better as was indicated by my right honourable friend the primer is the employment is questions to have said that he held one view, the commission and committee held another, he now recognises that what they felt was reasonable, and he is sorry to have had a view that has caused this upset, and the difficulty is sorry to have had a view that has caused this upset, and the difficulties to all of us. i still hope that what i in that situation i would have a sense, basically, to accept that there are views other than my own and i should not see things always with my own justification but rather than see them the way people outside this house and some insight would see them. as for a decision on whether the contents of my right honourable friend for south northamptonshire cosmic amendment is correct i recognise that what the member for harrogate said, about the 2003 r
on standards in public life is worth looking at, but that was 18 years ago, and this is a serious problem, should have been brought by then, orchestrated by the house all by senior members during the last 18 years. i am senior members during the last 18 years. iam happy senior members during the last 18 years. i am happy to bring it forward now is a way of changing what should be a normal process of upholding the standards committee s endorsement of the parliamentary standards commissioner is advised that the committee. secondly, referred to the debate in 2010, when jack straw was a secretary, and i contributed as well, we chose the system we are now using. if we want to consider changing it, to do it in a proper way, to consider changing it, to do it in a properway, i to consider changing it, to do it in a proper way, i don t regard this as appropriate now. taste a proper way, i don t regard this as appropriate now a proper way, i don t regard this as appropriate now. we come to the
anyone enjoys taking part in i sir peter bottomley. i don t think anyone enjoys taking part in this | anyone enjoys taking part in this debate. where the government s motion considered unamended i would vote for it. had the second amendment being called i would vote for it. i won t vote for the first amendment. i was on the standards committee up to 2003, but i withdrew on a point of practice rather than principle that the house, the speaker and the then labour government had not supported us, i m not going to change my practice now. i am one of the people, probably like most in this house who have read the full report. i have read what the chief vet said about the milk allegation, about what my right honourable friend said, and i have sympathy for what happened in his life. i recognise that the involvement of randox at aintree, and his wife as i role at training to be close to the business and much
without an appeal. but mr speaker, the commissioner reviews the cases, makes recommendations and prefer these to the standards committee which is cross party. majority of members from the opposite benches, as well as at labour mps, they decide whether to approve these are not and we then debate and vote on them. as i understand it, correct me if i m wrong, the right honourable gentleman had access to legal representation, and as at some mcaleese had pointed out, if everybody he wanted to give oral evidence to a court of law was just accepted, whether that get us? is that really what we re saying, they should be a system if i want to give evidence it means i get to see what i like? speaker, the committee process is in effect a process of appeal. the committee upheld the commissioner s report and recommendations and so must this house. forthe recommendations and so must this house. for the public to maintain their trust in us it is crucial that