More on KentOnline
More on KentOnline
A Tory MP says she stands by her decision to back a controversial vote which aimed to reform the way MPs are scrutinised.
Boris Johnson decided to abandon a plan to overhaul the disciplinary process for MPs after his government was accused of trying to use measures to protect Owen Paterson.
The North Shropshire MP had been in line for a 30-day House of Commons' suspension after a standards report found he had breached lobbying rules.
However, his colleagues voted to block this but after public backlash there was a u-turn on the decision. Mr Paterson later resigned.
Rochester and Strood MP Kelly Tolhurst voted in favour of setting up a body to look into reforming the standards process and to push aside the immediate suspension of Mr Paterson, who says he is innocent of any wrongdoing.
Medway Labour leader Cllr Vince Maple slammed her decision for doing this, saying: “This Conservative government has zero integrity, zero accountability, zero competence, zero honesty – but plenty of corruption.
“Conservative MPs, including Kelly Tolhurst, voted to change the rules to let their friend off the hook, even though a Commons' inquiry had recommended serious sanctions. It’s one rule for them, another for everyone else.
“Owen Paterson was caught red-handed, and the judgement was crystal clear. He broke the rules for businesses that paid him more than £100,000. Yet Kelly Tolhurst wanted you to believe there is nothing to see here."
Medway's other MPs, Tracey Crouch and Rehman Chishti, abstained from Wednesday's vote.
A fresh vote expected early next week will seek to undo the result.
Speaking Friday afternoon, Ms Tolhurst was "comfortable" with her decision to vote with the government.
The former aviation minister said her choice was was not a personally-motivated one, rather, she wanted to see a reform to the way MPs are investigated.
She said: "When I was a whip I saw a number of backbench colleagues go through the process and it did appear that it went on for a long period of time, it cost them thousands of pounds to have representation and, personally, I think we actually do need to look at it and see if it is a fair process for individuals who are part of it.
"A standards committee is actually not a particularly pleasant process for anyone to go through.
"My position on the vote was always very much I agree we needed to look at it, the way I voted was never linked to Owen Paterson.
"As far as I was concerned, we were voting for a new system to be reviewed and looked at.
"If he's broken the rules, he would have still a been found guilty under a new system."
While she had not gone through a standards review herself, she described the process as "harrowing" for colleagues who had.
And she said the view the government was trying to let one of its own off the hook was a "total mischaracterisation".
She added: "With regards to the u-turn, I'm slightly disappointed in the sense that actually, we're not going to look at it now which I think is a sad thing.
"I think that Owen was right. He's decided to resign that's fair enough, that's a decision for him and I'm comfortable with that.
"As far I'm concerned, it's not about MPs being able to make rules for themselves, but actually there is a fairness thing.
"All MPs are human beings and I've seen some of the really negative outcomes, some of the pain and anguish, that it's caused some who have made genuine mistakes or had genuine issues.
"They've been hauled through a system where they haven't been able to defend themselves or they haven't been able to provide evidence.
"It's about fairness, it's about being an open and fair system; it's not about the outcome.
"So it's the openness, fairness, and I do think that, again, this is just sadly the headline is 'corruption' and we're 'voting to protect our own'.
"I was with colleagues and that was not the feeling.
"I can be quite frank, if it was just about Owen Paterson I wouldn't have voted for it."
