Owen Paterson

The Registrar's investigation concerned six direct communications from Paterson to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care between January and October 2020, when he was a paid consultant to Randox and registered for VAT. The regulator considered that these communications constituted consultant lobbying activities requiring registration and that carrying them out without registration breached section 1(1) of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. The maximum civil penalty of £7,500 was imposed. This finding is distinct from an earlier review concerning a different period in which the registration conditions were not met.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Paterson argued, among other things, that the process had harmed his reputation and failed to provide the necessary safeguards. The European Court rejected the application, finding in substance that parliamentary oversight pursued the legitimate aim of public integrity and that the available safeguards were sufficient. This outcome is retained as favourable to the parliamentary system and unfavourable to Paterson's challenge.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The investigation opened in October 2019 concerned his approaches to ministers and senior officials on behalf of Randox Laboratories and Lynn's Country Foods, for which he was a paid consultant. The committee identified 14 approaches breaching the paid advocacy rule, as well as breaches relating to declarations of interests, use of his parliamentary office and House of Commons headed paper. It called the matter an 'egregious case of paid advocacy'. Paterson acknowledged the headed-paper breaches but denied the substance of the allegations, maintaining that he had acted to prevent 'serious wrongs' and challenging the fairness of the proceedings.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The House was due to approve the recommended 30-day suspension. A government-backed amendment instead provided for a new committee and review of the system, which would have delayed or shifted the handling of Paterson's case. Facing accusations of protecting an ally and undermining the system's independence, the government announced a U-turn. Paterson resigned as an MP on 4 November; the sanction was therefore never voted against him. The event is directly linked to his case, but the decision to change the procedure belonged to the government and parliamentary majority, limiting personal attribution.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

Between 2014 and 2019, UK 2020 funded ten trips by Paterson, notably to the United States for talks on Brexit and agricultural policies. The parliamentary register named UK 2020 as the source, but the private company was not required to disclose all its donors, prompting requests for an investigation into the funding's opacity. Paterson stated that he had declared all expenses in accordance with the rules. The Electoral Commission considered that there was insufficient evidence to suspect a political funding offence in the complaint examined, while clarifying certain future reporting obligations of the think tank. UK 2020 closed in 2019.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Data obtained through Freedom of Information showed a fall in adaptation spending from £29.1m in 2012-2013 to £17.2m in 2013-2014, as well as an earlier reduction in the number of dedicated staff. Paterson had also stressed that warming could have certain positive effects, such as fewer winter deaths or a longer agricultural growing season. Critics described the policy as complacent towards climate risk; Paterson disputed alarmist interpretations and defended a different cost-benefit analysis.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Personally implicated

After several weeks of flooding, Paterson visited the Somerset Levels and announced that a plan would be prepared within six weeks, probably involving more dredging. Residents and farmers denounced the slow response, the lack of an immediate guarantee of new funding and his insufficient engagement with them during the visit. Paterson acknowledged that their anger was justified and maintained that a coordinated, sustainable plan was necessary.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Political responsibility

The parliamentary committee considered that Defra relied on inadequate studies and failed to apply the precautionary principle properly in relation to risks to pollinators. The United Kingdom then opposed a broad European ban. Paterson and his department maintained that laboratory studies sometimes used unrealistic doses and that better field data were needed. The debate concerns a scientific and environmental policy dispute, not a legal breach.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The government presented culling as a necessary tool against bovine tuberculosis. When shooters failed to meet targets despite substantial revisions to population estimates, Paterson explained that badger numbers had changed naturally. Specialist scientists considered this explanation highly unlikely and warned that disruption of populations could even increase certain transmission risks. Paterson maintained that the pilots were necessary to assess the scheme's safety, humaneness and effectiveness.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated