European court rejects ex-Tory MP Paterson’s human rights claim

A former cabinet minister’s challenge to a parliamentary probe that found he broke lobbying rules has been dismissed by European rights judges.

Owen Paterson quit Parliament in 2021 in the wake of a report that found he had breached its rules while working a paid consultant for two firms.

In a legal challenge launched the following year, the ex-Tory MP argued the inquiry was procedurally flawed and had breached his human rights.

But this has now been thrown out by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

In its ruling, the court said the investigation had been conducted properly and was necessary to uphold Parliament’s internal rules.

Mr Paterson was found by Parliament’s standards commissioner to have broken Commons lobbying rules in approaching ministers and officials on behalf of two companies paying him £100,000 a year on top of his MP’s salary.

His case then hit the headlines after Boris Johnson’s government helped block a vote to endorse a 30-day suspension recommended by the committee of MPs that enforces Commons conduct rules.

The government later U-turned and said it would allow a vote, with Mr Paterson resigning during the enormous political row that followed.

The suspension was later approved retrospectively, with Mr Johnson’s handling of the scandal widely seen as a factor in his eventual downfall the following year.

Mr Paterson, a leading Eurosceptic who has previously campaigned for the UK to break away from the ECHR, subsequently applied to the court to challenge the lobbying report, arguing it had breached his rights to privacy and a family life.

At the time, his lawyers said the “irony” of him appealing to the court given his political views was “not lost”, but he had “no other choice, as the government has yet to meet its promise of repatriating human rights law to Britain”.

According to the court’s ruling, he argued the probe suffered from a “procedural flaw” because there was no formal way for him to appeal the verdict afterwards.

He also said publication of the report had damaged his reputation, caused him financial loss by making it “impossible” for him to get another job, and led to him being “shunned by many people he had considered friends”.

His arguments were rejected by the UK government, which is one of 46 signatory countries bound by the court’s rulings.

Its lawyers argued the Commons investigation had been “fair, rigorous and thorough”, and that it was not the role for courts to regulate the “business of Parliament”, including how standards rules are upheld.

In its verdict, the court dismissed Mr Paterson’s claim, adding that the probe was justified by the need to uphold the “maintenance of public trust” in Parliament.

It also added there were “adequate safeguards” during the probe, including that Mr Paterson was able to respond to the allegations against him and gave oral evidence to the committee that recommended the sanction.