A previous report from the Committee on Standards and Privileges (HCP 267, Session 2000-01; ISBN 0102189013) recommended a number of changes to the rules regarding the conduct of MPs. This report by the Committee contains further proposals for reform which it is hoped will simplify and clarify the rules in line with the requirements of the Electoral Commission. Recommendations include: 1) changes to the 'advocacy rule' which prohibits MPs from lobbying in parliamentary proceedings or during their constituency business for an organisation from which the MP receives financial benefit or consideration; and 2) the minimum level for the registration of financial interests to be set at one per cent of the current MP's salary (that is £550). An annex to the report contains a revised version of the 'Code of Conduct' and 'Guide to the Rules' incorporating the Committee's recommendations, which is commended to Parliament.
This report by the Commons Select Committee on Standards and Privileges presents their observations on the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (also known as the Wicks Committee) published in November 2002 (Cm. 5663, ISBN 0101566328). It concluded that standards of conduct in the House of Commons were generally high but also made 27 recommendations designed to improve the system of regulation, including the role and appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Select Committee on Standards and Privileges state their agreement with the vast majority of these recommendations, and where their opinion differs, alternative suggestions are made.
This is the second report (Committee on Standards and Privileges, HCP 207, session 2008-09), on Mr Derek Conway MP, the first was published January 2008 (HCP 280, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215038449). In the first report, the Committee accepted the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards investigation, that Mr Derek Conway had overpaid his son Freddie Conway, whom he had employed as his Parliamentary research assistant and had awarded him excessive bonuses. The Committee concluded that a serious breach of the rules had taken place. A further complaint was made against Mr Conway in employing his elder son, Henry Conway. The Committee has established that Henry Conway was employed from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004. At the time he was a full-time student. His duties as a research assistant were set out in his contract of employment and were wide-ranging, including dealing with constituents. In practice, according to Henry Conway and Mr Conway, half his time was spent on research-related work, and about half on administrative and office tasks. No documentary or other hard evidence of the work carried out by Henry Conway has survived. The Commissioner concludes, on the basis of the evidence seen, that Henry Conway did undertake work for Mr Conway during the period of his employment and that there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that Henry Conway failed to work the 18 hours a week for which he was contracted. The Committee has accepted the Commissioner's conclusion. The Committee further accepted the Commissioner's conclusions that Henry Conway's basic research and administrative skills were consistent with Mr Conway's requirements as his employer, and that the starting salary, at £800 above the minimum, was not unreasonably high in the circumstances at the time and the decisions to award bonus and overtime payments were not unreasonable. The Committee though agrees with the Commissioner that for the last 21⁄2 years of his employment, Henry Conway's salary was unnecessarily high and that by paying this amount, My Conway had breached the rules of the House. The Committee expects Mr Conway to apologise to the House for his breach by writing to the Chairman of the Committee, and further recommends he reimburse the House in full for the cost of the overpayments to Henry Conway, totalling £3,757.83.
The Committee recommends that the Ministerial Code should be given constitutional status but recognises that the Prime Minister is the final judge of ministerial conduct and performance. However this does not preclude accountability and there should be an annual meeting with the Liaison Committee where the working of the Code could be examined. The remit of the parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should be expanded to include advice to ministers on the Code and the Parliamentary Ombudsman should be empowered to investigate alleged breaches of the Code. It is also recommended that the Code be amended in respect of contact with lobyists and the announcement of Government policy.
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.