MPs voted by 250 to 232 to put off a decision on whether to suspend Tory MP Owen Paterson
Opposition MPs cried out "shame" as the result of the vote was read out
The Commons Standards Committee found Paterson had made an "egregious" breach of lobbying rules
But he denied the findings and said the investigation process was unfair
His case will now be reviewed during a wider re-examination of rules on MPs' conduct
Labour said the move would undermine the independence of the system and send a "terrible message" to the public
Image source, House of CommonsNow we have seen the vote go through, we are going to close down our live page for today.
But you can follow all the reaction on the BBC News channel or on our website, where we will keep you up to date.
Thanks for staying with us here in Westminster and see you next time!
A detailed breakdown, external of the result has just been published, showing 13 Conservative MPs voted against the amendment which paused Owen Paterson's suspension.
In total, 98 Conservative MPs did not take part in the vote - including those who deliberately abstained.
But there will also be MPs in that number who didn't or couldn't vote for other reasons.
Tellers announce the results as some shout "shame" from the benches.
Commons votes to change rules on investigating MPs
After the vote, Labour's Chris Bryant - who chairs the committee that currently investigates MPs' behaviour - says he'd like to point out his committee "continues to exist".
He says he will carry on as chair, and it will hold its next meeting on Tuesday.
That's the final result, formally confirming that MPs have voted to pause a decision on whether to suspend Owen Paterson.
Unsurprisingly, the result of the vote is almost the same as on the amendment - 248 votes in favour, with to 221.
Several opposition MPs are heard shouting "shame" as the result of the vote is read out.
MPs are now voting again to formally approve the motion, including the amendment.
Andrea Leadsom’s amendment has been backed by 250 votes to 232, meaning a decision on whether to suspend Owen Paterson will be put on hold whilst the system for investigating MPs is reviewed
Ione Wells
Westminster Correspondent, BBC News
For parliament's Standards Committee - this has been quite a personal affair.
Their judgement and findings are being directly challenged after being unanimously agreed by the committee members.
So the committee chair, the Labour MP Chris Bryant, used his speech in the debate to directly counter each of Owen Paterson's criticisms of their report.
He says if Owen Paterson was raising serious health concerns about food products with ministers on behalf of these companies then he could have done that in the media or elsewhere, rather than through paid lobbying.
He addressed Mr Paterson's claim that his witnesses had not been interviewed - saying all their statements were taken, and natural justice does not necessarily mean witnesses being cross-examined.
He also took issue with the government trying to change parliamentary rules after a punishment has been handed out.
Recently, Chris Bryant voted against his party's own amendment to try and make another set of rule changes apply retrospectively so the MP Rob Roberts - suspended for six weeks for sexual harassment - could face a recall petition.
Mr Bryant - despite rebuking Mr Roberts - said he couldn't back retrospective punishment because it would go against the proper independent process.
The debate comes to a close - and MPs are now voting on the amendment proposed by Andrea Leadsom.
If her amendment is approved, this would pause the decision on whether Owen Paterson should be suspended.
It would also set up a new committee of MPs to review his case, and the process for investigating MPs more broadly.
Remember - the government has instructed its MPs to vote in favour of this amendment.
Labour's Chris Bryant, who chairs the committee that investigated Mr Paterson, runs through its findings on his work for the two companies that paid him.
He says this included promoting products made by healthcare firm Randox and using his MP's office to seek "commercial meetings".
He says Mr Paterson lobbied ministers "time and again, in a way that conferred a direct benefit on his paying clients".
"That is expressly forbidden. It is a corrupt practice," he adds.
Mr Bryant says Mr Paterson was given "every opportunity" to put his case across - and his case was heard "respectfully and fairly".
Image source, HoCConservative Dame Andrea Leadsom says her proposal to change the system of investigating MPs' misconduct is "not about letting anyone off" or "stitching anything up".
"It is about the process of investigations into members," she says.
She argues that the current rules should be reviewed to make sure they "reflect the laws of natural justice" such as the right to appeal a judgement.
"I sincerely hope colleagues will be prepared to join together to review the system which is so clearly flawed," she adds.
Labour's Jess Phillips intervenes to say two people who have in the past made complaints of harassment against MPs have been in touch with her.
She says they argue that the proposals being debated today would make it hard for "anyone to come forward about anything".
Ms Leadsom replies that the process of investigating MPs accused of harassment is a different system and takes "all of the laws of natural justice" into account.
Pete Wishart also takes issue with an aspect of the government's plan - that the proposed new committee to look at the rules will have an in-built Tory majority.
He says the SNP will not serve on the proposed committee, calling it a "kangaroo court".
"We will have nothing to do with it, " he adds - and calls on Labour to do the same.
He adds that the Commons standards commissioner, Kathryn Stone, would have "every right" to "walk away from this" given what the government is proposing.
Image source, House of CommonsThe SNP's Pete Wishart says he thought the plan suggested by Andrea Leadsom and backed by the government was "some sort of joke" when he first found out about it.
He adds that it is a "shoddy attempt to turn back the clock to the worst excesses of 1990s Tory sleaze" and an attempt to "get one of their mates off the hook" by "rewriting the rules because it doesn't suit them".
Labour's Thangam Debbonaire says it is "vital" that the independence of the standards system is maintained - but Tory MPs "want to rip up the entire system".
She says the current system was approved by the Commons, and changing it "when someone doesn't like a result" is not acceptable.
She accuses the government of wanting to "systematically dismantle" the independence of the standards process - and says this would reduce the trust of people in politicians.
She says it would be "extraordinary" for MPs to overturn the recommendations made by the Commons standards committee, and will send a "terrible message" to the public.
Image source, House of CommonsJacob Rees-Mogg brings his long speech to a close, and it's now the turn of Labour's shadow Commons leader, Thangam Debbonaire, to respond.
She says the plan supported by the government "sends the message that when we don't like the rules, we just break the rules".
She adds that if is is approved, it would "turn the clock back" to 1695 - when the first Commons rules prohibiting paid advocacy were passed.
She says Jacob Rees-Mogg has had the chance "every week" to change the system for investigating MPs, and has failed to do so until now.
Continuing in his opening speech, Jacob Rees-Mogg highlights something the government wants to review: whether MPs should get the right to appeal inquiries into their conduct.
He says the right to appeal is “fundamental to the provision of justice”.
In the House of Lords, he says, peers can formally appeal the findings of their standards commissioner and any recommended sanctions.
He says an appeal process, along with greater examination of witnesses, would more closely align the Commons process with that used in other workplaces.
Ione Wells
Political Correspondent, BBC News
The membership of most committees in parliament - who scrutinise government policy - are made up of a range of cross-party MPs, and their chairs come from a variety of parties.
The existing Standards Committee is chaired by Labour MP Chris Bryant and has a further Labour MP, four Tory MPs, one SNP MP and seven lay members.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has questioned why the Conservatives' new proposed committee would have an "in-built" and fixed government majority.
They're proposing a new committee should consist of four Tories, three Labour and one SNP MP and be chaired by the Conservative MP John Whittingdale - who would get the casting vote in the event of any tied votes.
Image source, House of CommonsLiberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael says he is "not without sympathy" to the idea that the process for investigating MPs requires reform.
However, he says this can "only be done effectively" by building cross-party consensus on possible changes first - and the government has not done this.
He adds that is should be "apparent" to the government that the prospects of achieving consensus in the new committee it wants to set up to review the rules is as "remote as they would be in the chamber today".
"The way in which the government is going about this is self-defeating," he adds.
In reply, Jacob Rees-Mogg says he is "more optimistic" that a committee would stand a better chance of reaching a consensus than the whole Commons.
The prime minister's spokeswoman says that "there have been concerns for a while" about the way rules on MPs' behaviour operate.
Politicians have "lost confidence" in the current system, she adds, but tells journalists that the proposed changes do not mean MPs will "mark their own homework",
The spokeswoman adds that Boris Johnson made clear at Prime Minister's Questions earlier that paid lobbying is "wrong".
If you're a bit rusty on what lobbying is, take a look at the BBC's handy guide.
Image source, House of CommonsLabour's Chris Bryant, who chairs the cross-party committee that investigates MPs' behaviour, responds to Mr Rees-Mogg's points about witness statements.
He defends the process his committee followed in Mr Paterson's case, adding he had received a "perfectly normal, fair hearing”.
He says it is "perfectly normal" in misconduct investigations for witnesses statements to be read without the witnesses then being cross-examined.
And he adds that "no one asked to make an oral statement" in Mr Paterson's case.