The House should be given the opportunity to restate its acceptance of the principle behind the proposal that lay members be added to the Committee on Standards and Privileges, the Procedure Committee concludes in a report published today. The committee's report responds to the resolution of the House of 2 December last year that lay members should sit on the Committee on Standards and Privileges. If that principle is restated, the House should study with care the arguments made for the inclusion of lay members with or without voting rights, and decide whether lay members should be appointed to the committee with full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights protected by rules on quorum and publication of their opinion or advice. A decision in favour of membership with full voting rights would require legislation to be brought forward to put beyond reasonable doubt any question of whether parliamentary privilege applies to the Committee on Standards where it has an element of lay membership. The Procedure Committee recommends that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be split in two, and that lay members should be included only on the committee relating to standards. The committee also makes a number of practical recommendations about the number, appointment and term of office of lay members.
The Code of Conduct provides a set of rules to which Members must adhere. Some of these rules are supported by more detailed guidance. Those set out in this Guide relate to the registration and declaration of interests, and to paid lobbying. The Guide also sets out the procedure for inquiries by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The Guide to the Rules and amendments to it are approved by means of Resolutions of the House of Commons. This Guide therefore carries the authority of the House. The House has agreed that its previous resolutions in relation to the conduct of Members shall be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Code of Conduct and this Guide to the Rules relating to the conduct of Members. The Guide is structured as follows: (1) Chapter 1 of the Guide explains the requirements in relation to the registration of Members' financial interests; (2) Chapter 2 explains the requirements in relation to the declaration of interests in proceedings of the House and on other occasions; (3) Chapter 3 sets out the restrictions on Members engaging in lobbying for reward or consideration; (4) Chapter 4 provides an outline of the Commissioner's remit, and sets out the procedures in relation to the Commissioner's inquiries.
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.
Response to those recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life's report on MPs' expenses and allowances (Cm. 7724, ISBN 9780101772426) that relate to the responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges
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.