Contents

  Page

The complaint

1. On 27 May 2007 the Sunday Times published a story under the headline "MP hires son on expenses".[43] The story alleged that Mr Derek Conway (the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—hereafter called 'Mr Conway') was paying his son, Freddie Conway, £981 a month from his Parliamentary staffing allowance to act as his Parliamentary research assistant even though Freddie Conway was at the time "a full-time undergraduate at university".

2. On 3 June, Mr Michael Barnbrook, a constituent of Mr Conway, wrote to me saying that he wished to make a formal complaint against Mr Conway in respect of his employment of his son.[44] Mr Barnbrook suggested that Mr Conway might have misappropriated public funds and urged that I refer the allegations made by the Sunday Times to the police. In reply I said that, following Mr Barnbrook's complaint I would make preliminary inquiries as laid down in the procedures approved by the House. I would decide what further action was appropriate when I had the result of those inquiries.[45]

Relevant Provisions of the Code and Rules of the House

3. Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House provides:

"Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services."[46]

4. The rules relating to Members' Parliamentary allowances are contained in the 'Green Book' on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions.[47] Those governing the use of the staffing allowance are set out in Section 6. Section 6.1.1 provides that:

"The staffing allowance is available to meet the costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on the provision of staff to help you [the Member] perform your Parliamentary duties."

5. Following guidelines approved by the Committee in a previous case,[48] section 6.2.1 continues:

"It is a Member's responsibility to ensure that staff paid from this allowance are:

v  Employed to meet a genuine need in supporting you, the Member, in performing your Parliamentary duties;

v  Able and (if necessary) qualified to do the job;

v  Actually doing the job

And that the resulting costs, in so far as they are charged to this allowance, are reasonable and entirely attributable to the Member's Parliamentary work."

A provision to this effect was included in the July 2004 edition of the Green Book, just as it has been included in subsequent editions.

My Inquiries

Preliminary Stage

6. I wrote to Mr Conway on 5 June drawing his attention to Mr Barnbrook's complaint and inviting his response.[49] In particular I asked Mr Conway to let me know:

b)  for how long his son had been working for him;

c)  his son's hours of work and the precise nature of his duties;

d)  his son's qualifications for undertaking the duties;

e)  how much his son had been paid for his work.

I also contacted the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA), the department responsible for administering Members' allowances.

7. Mr Conway replied promptly to my initial approach. He wrote on 8 June, enclosing a copy of his son's contract of employment.[50] This showed that Freddie Conway had been employed by his father since 1 September 2004 as his part-time research assistant. His initial contract had shown his hours of work as "as arranged" with no specific expectation as to the number of hours he would work, but this had subsequently been amended (probably following the Department's scrutiny of the initial contract—see paragraph 16 below) to specify seventeen as his expected net weekly working hours. The hours themselves were to be worked "as arranged", that is there were no hours during which he was specifically required to work, so that, provided he worked seventeen hours in any one week, his duties could be undertaken flexibly as his father's requirements and his own other commitments (including as a student) allowed.

8. Freddie Conway 's job description is reproduced at WE 6. It is based on the standard job description which the DFA offers to Members as a starting point, for them to adapt as necessary when employing a research assistant. As such and in itself it is unexceptional.

9. In his letter enclosing the contract,[51] Mr Conway said that his son had begun work for him on 1 September 2004 and was due to end his part-time employment with his father in August 2007. (In fact, his son's employment ended on 24 August 2007.) Other key points made by Mr Conway in his initial response to the complaint were:

a)  to describe his son's university course as 'full-time' was misleading.[52] His son's course had not been particularly time-demanding. Many undergraduates undertook part-time work, which did not necessarily detract from their studies;

b)  his son's hours were worked "as arranged". None of his staff had ever been required to maintain a time-sheet;

c)  although his son's job description included liaising with Mr Conway's constituency personal assistant and others in the constituency, in practice his son had not been involved in constituency support as constituency matters were handled almost solely in the constituency office, not in Mr Conway's Parliamentary office which had been the focus of his son's activities;

d)  Freddie Conway 's "principal function" had been "… one of research, assisting me in general and with my particular interests in foreign affairs and defence …";

e)  there were no qualifications for such duties but his son had "gained top grades from A-level examinations and the political and foreign affairs aspect of his Geography undergraduate course were relevant to the foreign data and the research I required in support of my extensive foreign and defence affairs interests".

f)  his son's remuneration had been within the pay scales issued by the DFA.

10. Mr Conway concluded:

"I understand the duty placed upon you to answer Mr Barnbrook's complaint and I hope the information provided enables you to conclude that no breach of the requirements of the House has occurred."[53]

11. I subsequently sought the comments of the DFA in the light of Mr Conway's response. I also put some supplementary questions to Mr Conway, asking him to:

• give me examples of specific pieces of research work done by his son over, say, the last 12 months;
• give me an estimate of the hours his son had worked during, respectively, term-time and vacations;
• tell me where his son had been based when doing work for him, and whether any others would have seen his work;
• let me know whether his son had worked mainly in vacations or whether the work had been spread evenly over the year. I asked this because an article in Mr Conway's local paper had reported him as saying that the payments made to his son had been for "part-time holiday work".[54]

12. Mr Conway replied on 4 July.[55] No record of work done was kept for any of his staff, nor was any record maintained of the hours they worked. His son had access to Mr Conway's Parliamentary office, but the nature of what he required of his son meant that "much of the research could be done on his laptop so he could access the internet from my office, office at home or wherever a broadband facility has availability".

13. His son had helped with photocopying and other constituency-related tasks but had not been based in the constituency office nor had dealings with constituents. His son's pattern of work had been variable. The phrase 'part-time and holiday work' would give a more accurate reflection of his son's commitment than that quoted in his local paper.

14. Mr Conway concluded his letter by referring to the quality of the evidence brought by the complainant.

"This charge by Mr Barnbrook does not compare with that against Mr Duncan Smith. In that instance allegations were made by his senior staff, whereas in this case Mr Barnbrook can have no idea of my workload or what support I have to fulfil a very wide remit of interests.

"Mr Barnbrook is a serial complainer to your office and I find it difficult to answer charges which cannot be sustained. I doubt many, if any, Members of Parliament could provide the evidence required and I hope you will conclude that given Freddie's part-time studies, the entire basis of the Sunday Times report and Mr Barnbrook's subsequent complaint was based on a misconception of how much time an undergraduate on an humanities course has to spend in formal contact with tutors."[56]

15. In acknowledging Mr Conway's letter, I said that, while I accepted his statement that he had no record of his son's work, I was surprised that a combination of his own memory and that of his son, assisted by the electronic memory on his son's computer, could not apparently furnish me with any specific examples of work his son had done. Mr Conway replied that up to that point he had not troubled his son with my inquiries, because his son had for some months been undergoing medical treatment for a sports injury, which was still in progress.

16. The DFA's Director of Operations wrote to me on 23 July, in the process clarifying that the copy of Freddie Conway 's contract held by the Department gave his expected net weekly hours of work as seventeen and "as arranged". The Director said that, in respect of actual work done, the Department did not interpose itself between a Member and his staff. However, Members were advised that good record-keeping was an essential part of their role as an employer.[57] The Director commented:

"It is, therefore, disappointing that few records appear to exist in this case and, it would seem, for other members of Mr Conway's staff."

17. The Director gave the following information in relation to Freddie Conway's remuneration. He had originally been employed on a salary of £10,000 per annum. In February 2005, Mr Conway had requested that this be increased to £11,773 per annum, backdated to the start of his son's employment. The present salary had remained at that level and been paid monthly since. The salary, for 17 hours work a week, was equivalent to a full-time rate of £25,970 per annum. This was within the pay range permitted by the House.

18. In addition to this salary, Freddie Conway had, on his father's instruction, been paid four one-off sums:

• £2,000 in September 2005
• £5,000 in May 2006
• £1,300 in January 2007
• £1,765.94 in May 2007

No explanation had been given to the Department in respect of the first three of these payments (Members were not required to provide such an explanation), although the Department's assumption was that they were some sort of 'overtime' payment for extra work done. The payment made in May 2007 had followed an original application by Mr Conway for the payment to his son of a bonus of £5,000 but this had been scaled down because it exceeded the maximum allowable.[58]

19. In the light of this information, I wrote to Mr Conway on 24 July pointing out that the figures given indicated that by the time his son left his employment at the end of August as was then expected, he would have been paid a total of some £45-50,000 from public funds.[59] I noted that Mr Conway had not been able to give me:

• any indication of the hours worked by his son
• specific examples of work actually done by his son
• the name of any person, other than himself and his son, who would have been in a position to see the work done by his son.

In all the circumstances, I was not satisfied, on the evidence available to me that I would be justified in dismissing Mr Barnbrook's complaint. I therefore intended to pursue my inquiries. These would include interviewing Mr Conway, his son and his Parliamentary personal assistant (PA), who is in fact Mr Conway's wife. Unless my inquiries produced clear and convincing evidence that the payments made to his son had been justified, I would have no alternative but to report accordingly to the Committee.

Further Inquiries

20. Mr Conway acknowledged my letter on 27 July, saying that he would "do everything possible to cooperate with [my] further enquiries". He came to see me on 2 August for a preliminary conversation (at which the Registrar of Members' Interests was also present) about the process and timetabling of my inquiry. During our conversation Mr Conway indicated that he was already working with his son on a response to the questions I had previously put to him

Mr Conway's Full Response

21. This response arrived in a lengthy letter dated 11 October.[60] The Committee will wish to read the text of this in full. The following are the key points:

a)  Mr Conway's son had been employed by him to undertake research and generally support Mr Conway in his Parliamentary duties between 1 September 2004 and 24 August 2007;

b)  Mr Conway believed that his son was qualified to carry out the tasks he required his son to perform and that his job description fairly described the work his son did;

c)  the work his son had done was done at Mr Conway's direction and Mr Conway took full responsibility for his son's employment and his discharge of his duties under his contract;

d)  his son's work "related to my extensive activities covering my duties to the constituency, responsibilities in the House and involvement in international affairs". The work had been undertaken "throughout the year". The nature and timing of the work done reflected Mr Conway's own preferred method of working, and the fact that, like all Members, he did not work a conventional working week. It also reflected his preference for 'hard copy' materials; given that Mr Conway was not as skilled in using computers as some others, he had "relied heavily" in this respect on assistance from his son.

e)  work had not flowed consistently and he had not kept a log of the precise hours worked by his son:

"I was satisfied [my son] was working the appropriate number of hours under his contract and I did not think it was necessary to keep precise records of how long he did work."

22. As regards the precise nature of the work done by his son, Mr Conway described this as follows:

a)  Research—the preparation of briefings consisting of extracts from journals and newspapers ('briefing extracts') relating to overseas visits to be made by Mr Conway, to international visitors Mr Conway was to receive, or to meetings or Parliamentary proceedings in which Mr Conway was to be involved.

b)  Organisation of Papers—in respect of Mr Conway's duties as a member of the Speaker's Panel of Chairmen, both in relation to the chairing of standing committees on bills and statutory instruments and to chairing debates in Westminster Hall. In respect of the former, his son would relate the clauses of a Bill to the Explanatory Notes on the measure, and update them as necessary. In respect of the latter, his son would update the session chairing schedule. In order to help Mr Conway manage these and his many other Parliamentary commitments (including his role as a member of various Committees of the House), his son would keep two files—a 'Raise Again File' and an 'Awaiting Replies File'—so that papers were kept up-to-date and in order, and Parliamentary commitments and outstanding replies were not overlooked.

c)  IT Tasks—including research as described above using the internet; the sifting of e-mails sent to Mr Conway's parliamentary e-mail address; and the downloading, editing and attaching of photographs to accompany press releases made by Mr Conway to the local press (relating, for example, to visits by Mr Conway in the constituency or by constituents to Westminster).

d)  Administrative support—including the collection of mail; photocopying of papers; enveloping of replies; and keeping of the 'Raise Again' and 'Awaiting Reply' files previously mentioned.

23. As to where his son had carried out this work, Mr Conway said that most of it had been done at the family's Westminster apartment where Mr Conway preferred to work. When working there (or, very occasionally, in Mr Conway's room at the House), Freddie Conway had not had a separate Parliamentary e-mail account but had used his father's. Mr Conway had not required his son to generate documents for him on the apartment or office computers. When at university in Newcastle, Freddie Conway had continued to provide briefing for his father, using the computers in the university library to access relevant material on the web which he had then posted in hard copy form to his father.

24. Mr Conway said that his son had not had a consistent pattern of work. What he had done had depended on his father's needs at the time. When his son was not at university, he would work approximately 20 hours a week. When at university, he would work on average 14 hours a week. His son had returned to London quite often during term-time, as much of his social life was focused there. Moreover his degree course did not require him to be present all the time at university, either for lectures or other forms of study.

25. Mr Conway said that it was not uncommon for research assistants to Members to split their time between a course of higher education and part-time work for a Member. His son's qualifications and interests (he had planned, prior to his sports injury in February 2007, to enter the army) had fitted him for what he had been asked to do. As a member of the family, he was willing and able to work flexibly to meet his father's needs.

26. Mr Conway acknowledged that it would have been better if he had kept a note of his son's work-schedule but had thought that there was no need to do so. He now realized that he should have kept such records and apologized for his omission. As for the four additional payments he had made to his son,[61] these had been intended as bonus payments in recognition of work effectively done and of the fact that he had not increased his son's rate of pay in the latter two years his son had worked for him. Mr Conway had acted in good faith in making them, and apologized if he had misunderstood any aspect of the relevant procedure. He also apologized for his failure to inform the DFA that his son had not been able to work normally during June, July and part of August 2007 because of treatment relating to his sports injury.

27. As to evidence of work done by his son, Mr Conway said that his son's work had not brought his son into contact with Mr Conway's constituency secretary or anyone in the Palace of Westminster. It was not Mr Conway's practice to keep papers etc.: these were disposed of once the immediate need for them had passed. There were no examples of his son's work therefore, or witnesses to that work, he could produce.

28. Mr Conway said that he hoped I would, on the basis of his explanation, conclude that his son had fulfilled a supporting role in a post it had been reasonable for him to have:

"That given, my personal preference for working from more than one location and on days other than normal working days, it was understandable and not unreasonable to have a member of my family, capable of doing so, undertake activities during times that a conventional appointee could not be expected to work."

Should I consider that anything had been amiss—which he hoped I would not—this was his responsibility, and not his son's. He had not at any time intended to breach any Parliamentary rule.

Evidence of Mr Freddie Conway and Mrs Conway

29. Having received Mr Conway's full response to the complaint on 11 October, I made arrangements to interview his son and his wife. The interviews took place on 12 November. On both occasions Mr Greg Knight (Member for East Yorkshire) was present in the capacity of 'friend'. I was accompanied by Ms Alda Barry, the Registrar of Members' Interests.

30. An agreed note of my meeting with Freddie Conway is at WE 11. The picture he presented of his work was consistent with the explanation given by his father. His duties had centred mainly around computer and camera technology; internet research; cutting out press articles on topics of interest to his father; and general administrative support. He had the necessary skills and could fit the work in with his undergraduate course. Much of the work had been done at home in London, even during term-time (he had spent most weekends at home). Whilst at university in Newcastle, he had used the computer in the university library to search the internet for briefing material (relevant press articles, etc) relating to his father's interests; in London, he had used his father's computer at home. He had rarely visited his father's Parliamentary office, even during vacations.

31. Apart from his parents, he had not related much to anyone else in carrying out his work. Nor had he mentioned the fact that he was doing work for his father to any of his university friends: it was a matter between his father and himself. The 'briefing extracts' he had prepared for his father had consisted of print-outs of information on economic, political and defence material gathered from the web relating to, e.g., countries to be visited by his father. He would assemble a hard copy of the material, highlight passages of likely interest and sometimes add a manuscript explanatory covering note. When at university he would then post the material off to his father. He would not prepare analyses or summaries of the material, or prepare other documents on a word processor.

32. During the period of his sick leave in the summer of 2007, he had not ceased to do all work but (because of the nature of his injury) had not been able to sit at a computer screen for any period. The work he had done for his father might seem mundane but its nature meant that it was not work his father could have done for himself (his father was not skilled or at ease with using computers).

33. Mrs Conway said that she had worked as her husband's Parliamentary assistant (PA) since his first election to the House in 1983.[62] Constituency case-work was dealt with separately, in the constituency office; indeed her husband tended to compartmentalise the different aspects of his work in order to help him manage it, so that she did not have a detailed knowledge of what her son had done for his father. The younger Conway had done research on foreign affairs matters, as well as assisting, when he was in London, with IT-related and administrative matters. When he was at university he would send down material by post on countries his father was to visit. In London, he would collect and sort post; edit photographs for press releases; sort and file papers; and weed out unwanted e-mails (her husband 'hated and loathed' computers). Most of her son's work in London had been done in the family's flat. Her son's work would not have brought him into contact with other people in the House, apart from, to some extent, herself.

34. The pattern of her son's work had varied, as his father's did: as far as she could see, however, her son had worked hard enough to justify the payments made to him. Her husband had employed another part-time research assistant (who was also a student) since her son had ceased to work for him. It was not her husband's practice to keep files for any period of time, which accounted for the lack of any written evidence of work done for him by her son.

Interview with Mr Derek Conway

35. After a preliminary meeting with the DFA's Director of Operations—whose views I record in the following section of this report—I interviewed Mr Conway on 29 November.[63] Mr Conway said that he had employed his elder son, Henry, as a research assistant while he was a student before the younger one had come to work for him. His elder son had assisted with computer work and the post, and in helping his father to understand London issues following his election for a London constituency. Mr Conway's involvement in foreign affairs and defence matters had increased—interests which his younger son shared—and so it had been convenient and necessary to employ Freddie in turn to continue to undertake computer-related and administrative tasks and also to provide briefing on these interests. Since his younger son had completed his undergraduate course he had employed another student on a part-time basis to continue to provide such help.

36. Mr Conway was not himself computer literate and so he had particularly valued this aspect of the help all three of his research assistants had in turn given him. He found the briefing his younger son had provided on foreign affairs and defence matters useful in supplementing material he had been given from 'official' sources, which in any case had been limited. His son knew his father's interests and the extracts of material he had sent to his father gave an alternative view from that provided officially. His son's services in this area were particularly helpful in relation to Mr Conway's commitments arising from receiving overseas visitors and from a number of All Party Groups, for which no briefing from official sources was provided. He had prepared the extensive list of overseas commitments in section 2 of his letter of 11 October[64] by consulting his diaries for the period his younger son had worked for him. He had not asked his younger son if he recalled preparing briefing for these commitments but he himself recalled at least some occasions on which he was certain his younger son had done so.

37. As regards his son's support for Mr Conway's work chairing committees on bills and statutory instruments, he had found it helpful for his son to mark up explanatory notes to measures and also to mark up bills showing where amendments would go. This was not a service provided by the Legislation Office, nor would his son have had any contact with the staff of that office in doing it.

38. To undertake his research his son had used either the computer at the university or the one in the family's London flat. The work his son would have done when at university would have been that involved in assembling briefing extracts and relevant press cuttings for his father. The time involved in this would have varied; however, the demands of his university course were such that, working flexibly, it could be accommodated. This and other work would have been done in London, where his son had frequently been, even in term-time.

39. Mr Conway did not think any of his parliamentary colleagues would have been aware of what his son had done for him. It was not surprising that others did not know of it either: his son had not needed to contact others in the course of doing it, and the family did not discuss its business with others. He had not required his son to prepare briefs or documents on computer, and he was not in the habit of keeping papers once they were no longer needed.

40. He had not read the Green Book as thoroughly as he might and, with the benefit of hindsight, regretted that he had not kept employment records for his staff as he could see that this might have provided some kind of protection given the current complaint. The four additional payments he had made his son had all been intended in lieu of annual salary updating and as bonuses for work satisfactorily done. Provided the means to do so was available in his allowances, it had been his practice to give bonuses to all his staff. He had not been aware of the 15% limitation on the amount of a bonus.[65] As to the rate of pay he had given his son—which I pointed out was well above the starting rate recommended by the DFA—he had thought it reasonable in terms of what other young people in London were earning.

41. Mr Conway concluded that he had acted in good faith throughout. His son's services had been useful to him and he had not paid his son more than was permitted by the rules. Mr Barnbrook, the complainant, had been an opposing candidate at the last election. He believed this was relevant to Mr Barnbrook's motivation in making his complaint. Being a Member was a seven day a week commitment, for Mr Conway and his wife. Enforcing too rule-bound an approach to the job would lead to a loss of flexibility and a poorer service for constituents.

42. Mr Conway underlined a number of these points in a letter he sent me on 7 December covering his comments on the draft record of our meeting.[66] He had not breached the rules of the House in employing a family member. The work done by his son was capable of being undertaken in conjunction with his son's university course and was consistent with his son's interests and likely future career path (given that it meant that both father and son shared an interest in defence matters). The remuneration he had paid his son was within the pay-scales permitted by the House, specifically within the scale maxima for a senior researcher/parliamentary assistant and a researcher/parliamentary assistant. He had submitted bonus recommendations to the DFA for his son and his other staff by letter, supported by forms SA3 and SA2.

43. He accepted that he might not have followed the correct procedures, kept records and approached the calculation of his son's remuneration as he should, but he had throughout acted in good faith and in the belief that what he was doing was acceptable to the DFA. His son's work had been "very valuable" and enabled him to carry out a wide range of parliamentary duties. Mr Conway concluded:

"I hope you will accept from the evidence which my wife, my son and I have given independently that the work described by my son was done. You have had full explanations as to the way in which we worked and the basis of trust rather than full record keeping that governed our relationship. We have explained how we worked and why we worked in that way. I appreciate others would possibly do things very differently and I fully understand why you raised the questions which you did. However, I do want to stress that no-one has contradicted what my wife, my son or I have said."

Comments by the DFA's Director of Operations

44. At the meeting with the DFA's Director of Operations which preceded my conversation with Mr Derek Conway, I had asked the Director for advice on:

a)  the total staff costs incurred by the House as a result of Freddie Conway's employment by his father;

b)  the guidance given to Members about appropriate levels of starting pay for new employees;

c)  the level of bonus payments made to Freddie Conway ;

d)  whether, in his view, there had been any element of overpayment in Freddie Conway's remuneration and, if so, how much.

The Director's advice on these matters is reproduced in his letter of 7 December.[67]

45. The Director said that Freddie Conway's gross pay during his employment had been £45,163 (£32,240 net). In addition he would have received a pension contribution worth 10% of gross pay and Mr Conway's staffing allowance would have had to meet an employer's National Insurance contribution of £3,876.74.

46. The rules and guidance given Members about pay rates were "light touch". Members were given model job descriptions and associated pay ranges, but had a lot of discretion left to them in determining the content of a job and its pay level, though they were expected to apply salaries within the range appropriate to the job type. The current pay range for a research assistant (Freddie Conway's job type) was between £13,705 and £33,018, though the recommended minimum salary for staff in London was higher. Currently this recommended London minimum was £18,689: in 2004, when Freddie Conway had started to work for his father, it had been £16,614 (for a full-time employee).

47. While the DFA guidance gave Members a good deal of discretion, it said in relation to starting salaries:

"We [DFA] recommend that new staff outside London with little relevant experience should be paid at the bottom of this range, particularly if pay rates in the locality are low. But you may want to pay a little more for a new employee with some relevant experience, and to staff based in London or other areas where pay rates are higher. We recommend that new starters should only be paid in excess of recommended starting pay if they are fully experienced—for example, a researcher with many years' experience transferring from another Member."

However, this advice would need to be modified in cases in which staff entering the grade would be assuming a significant level of responsibility. Typically, such staff would also have relevant experience or be well qualified or both.

48. Without solid documentary evidence it would not be possible to form a view of the responsibility level at which Freddie Conway had been operating. Nevertheless he had been paid from the outset above the median pay level as well as above the mid-point of the range. The Director continued:

"Overall—and perhaps on incomplete information—I find this somewhat surprising. However, as mentioned above salary decisions within the approved ranges are entirely at the discretion of the Member, who will take local market factors (e.g. the cost of London-based staff) into account as well as responsibility levels, experience and qualifications."

49. As to the additional payments made to Freddie Conway, the Director said that since it now appeared that the first three as well as the last of these had been bonus and not, for example, overtime payments, he considered that these three had breached the cap on such payments. He calculated that Freddie Conway had received a total bonus overpayment of £4,620 (net £3,439).

50. Given the relatively high starting salary paid to Freddie Conway, I had also asked the Director to offer a view on the extent to which it might be argued that Freddie had been overpaid for what he was known to have done. The Director said that, using the 2006-07 median pay figure as a proxy for a fair and appropriate salary throughout the period (suitably adjusted for earnings changes) it would be possible to contend that an excess salary payment of some £5,400 (gross) had occurred during Mr Conway 's entire employment. If this proxy salary was applied it would increase the level of bonus overpayment and result in a total gross overpayment of £10,900 (approximately £7,300 net) plus a pension overpayment of some £1,000. I emphasise that the overpayment of bonus noted in paragraph 49 is an actual overpayment: the sum of £10,900 is a theoretical figure based on a notional calculation of an average salary plus the actual overpayment of bonus.

51. Two other relevant pieces of information were subsequently given me by the DFA. First, the Department said that it had no record of Mr Conway having submitted letters in support of bonus payment applications after forms SA2 and 3 had been introduced in March 2005. Only the forms had been used from that point.

52. Secondly, following references made by Mr Conway at my meeting with him on 29 November to his previous engagement of his elder son, Henry, and his practice in respect of bonus payments to all his staff,[68] I asked the DFA for pay and bonus information in respect of Mr Conway's other staff. This showed that:

a)  Mr Conway's elder son, Henry, had from March 2003 been paid at approximately the same rate (£10,000 pa, in Henry's case for 18 hours work per week) at which the younger son, Freddie, had initially been employed (in Freddie's case, for a contracted 17 hours a week);

b)  the research assistant who had succeeded Freddie had been paid slightly below the level paid to Freddie for the same hours of work;

c)  all the above payments had been within the permitted pay ranges for the research assistant grade;

d)  the bonuses paid by Mr Derek Conway to members of his own family were , in absolute and percentage terms, substantially in excess of those paid to staff who were not family members.

Further Comments by Mr Derek Conway

53. I sent the draft factual sections of this report to Mr Conway on 14 December. In an e-mail of 17 December, Mr Conway said that he was content with their accuracy, with the exception of some queries he had about various financial calculations made by the DFA.

Findings of Fact

54. Mr Conway employed his younger son, Freddie, between 1 September 2004 and 24 August 2007 as his research assistant, having previously employed his older son, Henry, in a similar capacity. During the bulk of this period Freddie Conway was undertaking a nominally full-time undergraduate course of study at Newcastle University. Freddie Conway's contract gave his expected net weekly working hours as seventeen, to be worked "as arranged". The job description accompanying the contract was consistent with the guidance on the appropriate duties for a research assistant issued to Members by the DFA.

55. In interview, Freddie Conway, supported by his father and mother (who is Mr Conway's Parliamentary Assistant), has described his duties as falling into four main categories:

• the preparation of briefing and press extracts associated in particular with his father's extensive overseas and defence interests, using the internet to search for appropriate sources;
• the management of Committee and other papers needed by his father in connection with his Parliamentary duties;
• IT-related activities (assisting in the manipulation of photographs to accompany press releases, and in sifting e-mails);
• general administrative support (collecting and sorting mail, photocopying, etc).

The first of these duties had been undertaken by him both at university and in London: the others when he was in London, which he was extensively even in term-time.

56. Freddie Conway says that when at university in Newcastle, he undertook his work for his father mainly using the facilities in the university library. At home, he worked almost exclusively at the family's London apartment. He would work flexibly, as his father's needs required. While his university course was nominally "full-time", it was research-based and his lecture and other commitments were not extensive. He could therefore fit in the work he was contracted to do for his father with his academic studies.

57. According to all three members of the Conway family I interviewed, the nature of Freddie Conway's work, his father's working practices and the way in which he himself undertook the work he was asked to do meant that Freddie did not have contact with non-family members when doing it. Nor was it his father's habit to keep papers once the immediate need for them had passed. He did not expect his son to originate documents for him using a word-processor. Consequently neither Mr Conway nor his son have been able to provide me with examples of work actually done by his son or to point me towards people with whom his son would have come into contact when doing work for his father. Mr Conway has, however, provided me with a list of events in connection with which he says his son would have provided him with briefing or helped him marshal his papers, and an estimate of the average pattern of hours his son would have worked.[69] He did not, however, keep a record of the number of hours worked by any of his staff.

58. On his appointment in September 2004, Freddie Conway was paid £10,000 pa, the same sum as his elder brother before him had received for a broadly similar number of hours work.[70] In February 2005, this was increased to £11,773 pa, backdated to his first day of work. Subsequently, the amount he was paid remained at that level (the full-time equivalent salary being £25,970). This level of salary was significantly above the DFA recommended starting salary for a new entrant research assistant in London, though within the permitted salary range.

59. In addition to his basic salary, Freddie Conway was, on his father's instruction, paid four one-off sums:

• £2,000 in September 2005
• £5,000 in May 2006
• £1,300 in January 2007
• £1,765.94 in May 2007

These sums were all intended as bonus payments. The last was reduced by the DFA to the amount paid to bring it within the permissible ceiling for such payments. The other three were not understood by the DFA to be bonus payments because the wrong form was used by Mr Conway when he applied for them. As a result, Freddie Conway's first three bonus payments exceeded the permissible level by a total of £4,620 gross (£3,439 net).

60. Mr Derek Conway has apologized for his failure to keep records and follow appropriately all the procedures laid down in the Green Book. He has stressed that at all times he has acted in good faith and in the belief that what he was doing was consistent with DFA-approved practice.

Conclusion

61. I set out in paragraphs 4-5 above the relevant tests against which Mr Conway's employment of his younger son as his part-time research assistant falls to be judged. It is important to note at the outset that there is nothing in the rules of the House that bars a Member from employing a member of his or her family on his or her Parliamentary staff. The overall requirement Mr Conway was obliged to meet—set out in paragraph 6.1.1 of the Green Book—is that the cost to Parliamentary funds (in total, some £53,000 over a three year period) should have been "wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred" in helping Mr Conway to perform his Parliamentary duties. The guidelines in paragraph 6.2.1[71] provide the following questions against which to assess whether or not that overall requirement was met in this case:

a)  Was Freddie Conway employed to meet a genuine need in supporting his father in his Parliamentary work?

b)  Was Freddie Conway able and qualified to undertake the work required of him?

c)  Did he actually do the work?

d)  Were the resulting costs charged to the Staffing Allowance reasonable and entirely attributable to his father's Parliamentary work?

I examine the evidence in respect of each of these questions in the following paragraphs of this report.

A)  WAS FREDDIE CONWAY EMPLOYED TO MEET A GENUINE NEED IN SUPPORTING HIS FATHER IN HIS PARLIAMENTARY WORK?

62. As Mr Conway has himself pointed out,[72] how Members of Parliament undertake their role varies widely. In recognition of this, they are given a great deal of discretion as to the type of staffing support they need to undertake the role. The DFA provides guidance to Members in the form of model contracts, a broad grading structure, illustrative job descriptions and recommended pay bands. But as we have already seen, the job descriptions are fairly general and the pay bands very wide.

63. Mr Conway is adamant that the assistance he received from his younger son was "very valuable" to him and enabled him to carry out a wide range of Parliamentary duties.[73] In part, he maintains, the assistance helped him in an area in which he was less than proficient (IT-related work). In part, he argues, it ensured he had briefing on his extensive overseas and defence interests which supplemented the briefing available from official quarters or filled the gap where none was provided. In part it supplemented the help already provided by his wife, as his Parliamentary assistant, in relation to his general administrative support and the management of his papers.

64. Some evidence of the genuine nature of these needs is provided not only by the testimony of the Conway family but by other factors. These include the fact that Mr Conway had previously employed his elder son as his research assistant to undertake a somewhat similar range of duties and, since his younger son, Freddie, ceased to work for him, has employed another part-time research assistant with, he says, a similar brief. The type of work undertaken by the younger son was of a sort undertaken by other research assistants employed by Members and fell within that specified by the DFA as consistent with the grade of research assistant.

65. I have to say that, on the basis of the description Mr Conway and his son have given me of the nature of the work done, I am dubious about the real substance of much of it. A lot of it seems to have been pretty low-grade in character. The 'briefing extracts' Freddie Conway prepared do not appear to have required him to undertake summaries or analyses of the material he had assembled. [74] The 'flagging up' of Explanatory Notes on legislation was a simple clerical task. I am not clear why Mr Conway could not have made greater use of other resources available to him, as to other Members, in the staff of the Library or the Legislation Office. Was it sensible for Mr Conway's son to work on preparing briefing and on organising papers on legislation in such isolation from other sources of help available to Mr Conway in the House? Although the routine clerical help Freddie gave his mother and father on those weekends when he was down in London may have been useful, was it an efficient use of resources to pay him a not insignificant salary to undertake a round-trip of some 500 miles to provide it?

66. That said, I think anyone who has not themselves been a Member should be wary, without clear evidence to justify them doing so, in substituting their judgment for the Member's on how best the job can be done. It is clear from Mr Conway's evidence that he regarded his son's work for him as meeting a variety of needs he had in carrying out his duties as a Member. What Freddie did for his father appears to have met satisfactorily his father's requirements. While I have reservations about the real substance of the work he is said to have done (for the reasons I have set out), I conclude on this point that Freddie Conway was employed to meet a genuine need, as perceived by his father, in helping him to undertake his Parliamentary duties.

B)  WAS FREDDIE CONWAY ABLE AND QUALIFIED TO UNDERTAKE THE WORK REQUIRED OF HIM?

67. No formal qualifications are laid down by the DFA as being required of someone to undertake the role of Parliamentary research assistant. However, it is clear that the Department would expect that someone employed in that capacity would have the intellectual skills of analysis and understanding, etc required to undertake research and to assemble briefing on the basis of that research. When employed by his father, Freddie Conway had a set of good A levels and was undertaking a course of undergraduate study with some relevance to his father's interests in international affairs. He planned a career in the army, so sharing his father's defence interests. He possessed sufficient skills in using a computer to undertake the tasks in that respect which his father expected of him. In short, whilst he was by no means as well qualified as some others who undertake the role of research assistant for Members, I am satisfied that he was able, in terms of his qualifications and skills, to do what was required of him by his father.

C)  DID FREDDIE CONWAY ACTUALLY DO THE WORK HE WAS CONTRACTED TO DO?

68. I find this a much more difficult question to answer than the previous one. The difficulty arises from the complete lack of any documentary evidence of work done by Freddie Conway coupled with the absence of any evidence from witnesses, apart from Mr and Mrs Conway, who saw him undertaking work for his father. In his letter of 11 October,[75] Mr Conway sets out a lengthy catalogue of work in which he says his son would have assisted him. It is clear, however that this is more a list of Mr Conway's commitments during the period his son worked for him than it is a firm statement of work actually done by the son.[76]

69. One matter which is relevant to answering the question is that raised by the complainant and in the Sunday Times article at WE 1: as a student pursuing a "full-time" university course, would Freddie Conway have had the time to do what was required of him? In vacations the answer is clearly "yes", but would he have had the capacity during term-time?

70. Mr Conway and his son both say that to call the son's course "full-time" is misleading. Freddie Conway says that his lecture and other academic commitments were not demanding.[77] Both father and son point out that many other students undertake part-time work to help finance them through their university studies. Freddie adds that because of the nature of the work he did for his father, it could be done flexibly, at a time of his choosing, unlike other forms of student part-time work.[78]

71. I do not doubt that Freddie Conway could have done some part-time work for his father while at university during term-time. In his letter of 14 October his father estimates that he would have averaged 14 hours work a week while at university (20 hours a week at home during vacations).[79] The only type of work it would have been possible for him to have done while at university would have been the preparation of "briefing extracts" for Mr Conway's overseas visits, etc and press cuttings on topics of interest to Mr Conway. All the other types of work Freddie Conway is said to have undertaken would have required his presence in London. Even assuming that Freddie spent many of his weekends during term-time in London (a factor which in itself would have removed from his available working time, by my calculation, some 10-12 hours a week spent on travel to and from university in Newcastle) I doubt that, during term-time, Freddie would either have been faced with the requirement to work 14 hours a week for his father or had the capacity to do so.

72. To sum up on this point, having interviewed Mr and Mrs Conway and their son, I am prepared to accept their assurances that Freddie Conway did do work for his father of the sort his father has described. I doubt whether that work was so extensive, or his availability during term-time in particular was such, as to enable him consistently to meet his contractual commitment to do an average of 17 hours work a week for his father.

D)  WERE THE COSTS OF HIS SON'S EMPLOYMENT CHARGED BY MR CONWAY TO THE STAFFING ALLOWANCE REASONABLE AND ENTIRELY ATTRIBUTABLE TO MR CONWAY'S PARLIAMENTARY WORK?

73. It will be apparent from the preceding paragraph that I have reservations as to whether Freddie Conway did as much work as that for which his father paid him. There are two additional respects in which I believe the question I have just posed can only be answered in the negative.

74. First it is clear from the information provided by the Director of Operations in the DFA that the first three bonuses paid by Mr Conway to his son broke the 15% cap on such payments.[80] Mr Conway told me that he had been unaware of this cap.[81] However, in March 2004, Mr Conway was informed by letter by the DFA that bonuses he had proposed at that time to pay his wife and his elder son could not be paid because they exceeded 15% of the relevant current annual salary, and would be reduced accordingly. Whether or not he retained knowledge of this rule, it is clear that Mr Conway submitted his first three requests for bonuses to be paid to his younger son on the wrong DFA form and that in total his younger son received bonus payments of £4,620 gross (£3,439 net) which he should not have received.

75. Secondly, I have significant reservations about the level of salary Mr Conway paid his younger son. This was initially set at £10,000 pa and later raised to £11,773 pa backdated to the start of his son's employment, equivalent to a full-time rate of £25,970 pa. Whilst I accept that the rate was not subsequently increased in line with general salary increases (although generous bonuses were paid, as we have seen), the recommended starting salary for a new-entrant research assistant in London when Freddie Conway took up his post was £16,614 pa for a full-time employee. As I have recorded earlier,[82] Members are given a good deal of discretion as to where they place their staff within the recommended pay band, and they can adjust a starting rate of pay to reflect local employment market conditions and the level of experience and responsibility held by the person they are employing. Even so, the relevant DFA guidelines say now as they said in 2004:

"We recommend that new starters should only be paid in excess of recommended starting pay if they are fully experienced—for example, a researcher with many years' experience transferring from another Member."

The salary paid Mr Conway's son was, I believe, very generous when set against his lack of experience and (at that time) limited academic qualifications, and when the relatively modest demands placed upon him in terms of the substance or 'quality' of the work he was required to do are taken into account.

76. As Mr Conway points out,[83] the rate at which he paid his son was well within the broad scale for the research assistant grade. Freddie Conway was paid at the full-time equivalent rate of £25,970 pa. Taking current figures actually paid by Members to their research assistants, this salary would place Freddie well above both the mean and the median rate of pay for the grade (£23,212.14 pa and £22,494.60 pa respectively) and just £1,000 below the current upper quartile payment of £26,974.92.

77. To sum up my assessment of the position in relation to this final test of the appropriateness or otherwise of Mr Conway's employment of his younger son, I do not think that all the costs he charged to his Parliamentary Staffing allowance were "reasonable and entirely attributable to [Mr Conway's] Parliamentary work". They were not reasonable in that they included bonus payments in excess of the permitted maximum and in that Freddie Conway's salary was, in my view, excessive having regard to his limited experience and qualifications and the relative degree of responsibility he carried. They were not entirely attributable to Mr Conway's Parliamentary work to the extent that (a) the work Mr Conway required his son to do could probably have been purchased at a lower price, and (b) I doubt (for the reasons I have set out in paragraphs 68-72 above) that Freddie Conway consistently met his contractual commitment in terms of the quantity of work he did.

Summary of Findings and Recommendation

78. Mr Barnbrook's complaint was that Mr Conway had misappropriated public funds by paying his son £981 a month from his Parliamentary Staffing allowance whilst his son was still in full-time university education. One possible implication of this was that Freddie Conway had done no work to justify the payment he received from his father. There is little evidence other than the word of the Conway family to counter this implication. However, for the reasons I have given earlier I believe, on the balance of probabilities, that Freddie Conway did do some work, for which he was appropriately qualified, which did meet a genuine need, as perceived by his father, in discharging his Parliamentary duties.

79. However, I have found, on the balance of probabilities, that it is unlikely that the work done by Freddie Conway was so extensive, or that his availability during term-time in particular was such, as to enable Freddie consistently to meet his contractual commitment to do an average of 17 hours work a week for his father. I have also found that:

a)  Mr Conway authorised bonus payments to his son which, in total, exceeded the maximum allowed by £4,620 gross (£3,439 net);

b)  in my opinion, Mr Conway paid his son substantially more than an appropriate rate for the job he was doing, given his son's relatively limited experience, qualifications and level of responsibility.

c)  In total, the cost to Parliamentary funds of these infringements of the rules of the House is likely to exceed £10,000.[84]

80. I therefore recommend that Mr Barnbrook's complaint be upheld in the respects indicated in the preceding paragraph. In doing so, I make clear that, as Mr Conway has himself accepted, responsibility for the shortcomings identified rests with him, not primarily with his son.[85]

81. Mr Conway has said that he has all along acted in good faith and has apologised for his failure to keep adequate records as an employer and to comply with all DFA requirements. As Mr Conway has himself noted, following the requirements of the Green Book in all respects not only protects the public but also the Member.[86] Unless all Members accept and act on this, they will continue to find themselves vulnerable to this kind of complaint.

21 December 2007  Sir Philip Mawer

1.  Article in Sunday Times, published 27 May 2007

A SENIOR Tory MP is paying his son to act as his parliamentary assistant even though he is still a full-time undergraduate at university.

Commons records reveal that Frederick Conway was paid at the rate of Pounds 981 a month from the parliamentary staffing allowance handed to his father Derek, a former government whip.

Derek Conway's wife, Colette, is also on the payroll and is paid Pounds 3,271 a month as another of his registered parliamentary assistants, according to the returns for November last year.

Conway, who ran the leadership campaign of David Davis, the shadow home secretary, is the latest MP to stand accused of exploiting the expenses awarded to parliamentarians.

Frederick Conway's personal website reveals he is a geography student at Newcastle university set to graduate this summer.

As a registered parliamentary assistant he has a Commons pass and last summer held his 21st birthday party on the House of Commons terrace overlooking the Thames, attended by his parents and friends.

He has also played for the parliamentary rugby team.

Photographs of the events appear on his Facebook website page. It is not known how long he has worked for his father or in what capacity, although parliamentary records show he had a Commons pass in 2005.

Derek Conway, 54, is one of the most senior Tory backbenchers. He was first elected to parliament in 1983 and served as a junior minister before becoming a whip under John Major's premiership. He is regarded as a parliamentary bruiser and has criticised the conduct of Labour cabinet ministers, including John Prescott.

He sits on the all-party Commons administration committee that oversees the operation of the parliamentary estate.

Conway, now MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup in southeast London, has previously attracted criticism over his expenses. In 2005-6, he claimed Pounds 4,072 for car mileage, which can be claimed for journeys between home, Westminster and the constituency, and for travel up to 20 miles outside of an MP's seat on local business. Conway's claim would equate to about 1,000 trips between Westminster and his constituency.

He also claims the full allowance for the costs of running a second home for those who need a constituency and a central London base.

Yesterday, when asked about his son's employment, he initially denied a professional relationship. However, when confronted with details of the payments he said: "It's not something that I am going to be drawn into talking about ... I'm not talking about individuals and you must print what you want to print. I am not going to comment." Although the question was put to him six times, he declined to respond further.

MPs receive a "staffing allowance" of more than Pounds 80,000 annually to pay employees in their parliamentary and constituency offices. These staff are entitled to full-time contracts, pension entitlements and other perks. The rules stipulate that members of staff must be "employed to meet a genuine need in supporting you, the member, in performing your parliamentary duties; (be) able and (if necessary) qualified to do the job; (and) actually doing the job".

The Sunday Times has established that several other MPs are also employing family members as parliamentary staff. Malcolm Bruce, the Liberal Democrat MP, pays his wife Rosemary Pounds 28,500 a year.

Sir Stuart Bell, Labour MP for Middlesbrough, employs his wife Margaret for Pounds 35,000 a year and Nick Ainger, Labour MP for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, pays his wife Sally about Pounds 19,000 a year. They all confirmed the arrangements and said they had complied with the rules.

Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, had to resign amid allegations that he was paying his wife for parliamentary duties she did not perform. An inquiry later ruled that she had carried out the work within the rules.

The latest disclosures come amid growing unease at attempts by MPs to exempt themselves from Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. MPs disclose only total expenditure claims—but are under pressure to reveal a breakdown of their staffing, office and other expenses.

After a battle, the Commons had to publish a breakdown of travel allowances by car, train and flights. This embarrassed Barry Gardiner, the environment minister, as it showed he had claimed mileage allowances last year equivalent to driving his family car to Delhi and back, even though he is a London MP with an official government car.

The information commissioner believes even more detailed information on every claim met by the taxpayer should be published. A similar disclosure in Scotland led to the resignation of David McLetchie, the Scottish Tory leader, who could not account for Pounds 5,000 of "personal" taxi journeys.

A Whitehall review of parliamentary pay and allowances, which will report to the prime minister next month, is expected to call for an end to the "gravy train" of MPs' expenses.

MPs can claim Pounds 250 "petty cash" a month without stipulating what the money is for. A further Pounds 400 a month can be claimed for food without producing receipts. In total, MPs can legitimately pick up Pounds 7,800 tax-free per annum on trust because they are presumed to be "honourable" members.

The Senior Salaries Review Board is conducting a review of parliamentary pay and allowances which will report to the prime minister next month. It is also understood to be analysing the system of claiming expenses.

One source said: "They are looking at the system itself and the reputational impact that some of the current practices may have. However, there is a lot of pressure from senior MPs on the board only to look at the level of pay and not make recommendations on the detail".

Ten days ago MPs caused uproar after voting in favour of a backbench bill which would exclude them from FOI laws, apparently with the tacit support of the government and the opposition front benches. The bill is now due to be heard in the Lords.

Gordon Brown and David Cameron have both pledged to continue publishing information about expenses. This is unlikely to include the detailed breakdown being demanded and the information commissioner would have no powers to force the release of the information. MPs do well at our expense

Letters, page 18

WHAT MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED

Staffing allowance Pounds 84,081

To pay for employees' pay, pensions and perks Additional costs allowance Pounds 21,634

To cover mortgage interest for a second property, utility bills, grocery bills, council tax and insurance

Incidental expenses allowance Pounds 20,000

To pay for office and surgery costs. MPs can also pick up Pounds 250 every month in petty cash from this allowance

Travel expenses No maximum

27 May 2007

2.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Michael Barnbrook, 3 June 2007

I wish to register a formal complaint against my local Member of Parliament, Mr Derek Conway.

My complaint is based on newspaper reports that Mr Conway is paying his son £981 a month from his parliamentary staffing allowance whilst the son is still in full time education at Newcastle University.

According to press reports Mr Conway is refusing to indicate what work his son undertook on his behalf or how many hours he worked for him.

This reluctance to reveal information, which should be in the public domain, may be due to a possible misappropriation of public funds by Mr Conway, which is a criminal offence.

For this reason I am requesting that you instigate the protocol entered into between yourself and the Metropolitan Police, which was formulated as a direct result of my complaint against Mr Michael Trend.

That protocol states that all cases of possible abuse of parliamentary allowances by Members of Parliament will be referred to the Metropolitan Police Service Economic and Specialist Crime Unit for consideration and assessment of possible criminal conduct.

I enclose a copy of a letter from the MPS Directorate of Professional Standards dated 30^th June, 2004 which refers to the protocol between you and the Metropolitan Police.

I also enclose a copy of a letter from you to me dated 13^th January, 2005 which sets out the procedure you should adopt in any complaint alleging possible criminal conduct by a Member of Parliament.

In conclusion, I am concerned about comments made by Mr Matt Cartmell, a journalist with the Bexley Times who states in an article dated 1^st June, 2007 that a spokesman on your behalf said that no complaint had been received against Mr Conway's conduct, so no action will be taken against him at this stage.

If that statement was made by your spokesman I would refer him to Section 55, page 17, of the Fifth Report of Session 2002-03 relating to the complaint against Mr Clive Betts, MP, which mentions a willingness by the Committee on Standards and Privileges to take the initiative in authorising an investigation, when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards places a request before it, without waiting for a complaint from a Member of Parliament or member of the public.

I would be interested to know why you were reluctant to approach the Committee on this occasion.

3 June 2007

3.  Letter to Mr Michael Barnbrook from the Commissioner, 5 June 2007

Thank you for your letter of 3 June, in which you say that you wish to make a formal complaint about Mr Conway's employment of his son. The essence of your complaint is the allegation that Mr Conway is paying his son £980 from his Parliamentary staffing allowance whilst the son is still in full-time education.

You refer to an alleged protocol between the Metropolitan Police and me about the investigation of such matters. As I made clear in my letter to you of 13 January 2005, there is no such written protocol.

Having received your complaint, I will make preliminary inquiries as set out in the enclosed note. I will decide what, if any, further action is appropriate once I have the result of those inquiries.

Finally, you refer to a report in the Kentish Times of 31 May. I understand that the reporter asked if my office had received a complaint against Mr Conway. At the time of their inquiry the answer was 'no'. That is the answer they were given.

I will write again in due course.

5 June 2007

4.  Letter to Mr Derek Conway from the Commissioner, 5 June 2007

I enclose a copy of a letter of complaint I have received from one of your constituents, Mr Michael Barnbrook.

You will see that the focus of Mr Barnbrook's complaint is an allegation which first appeared in an article in the "Sunday Times" of 27 May 2007. This was that you had paid your son £981 a month from your Parliamentary staffing allowance to act as your Parliamentary assistant, although your son is still a full-time undergraduate. The implication was that any work done for you by your son could not justify the payment made to him.

You will also see that Mr Barnbook goes into a number of other matters in his letter which are for me rather than for you to answer. I enclose a copy of my letter in reply, for your information.

Paragraph 14 of the Code of Conduct approved by the House provides:

"Members shall at all times ensure that their use of expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is strictly in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters, and that they observe any limits placed by the House on the use of such expenses, allowances, facilities and services."

Section 6 of the "Green Book" sets out the scope and purpose of the Parliamentary staffing allowance. It makes clear that the allowance is available "to meet the costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on the provision of staff to help you perform your Parliamentary duties" (paragraph 6.1.1). Paragraph 6.2.1 says that:

"It is a Member's responsibility to ensure that staff paid from this allowance are:

• employed to meet a genuine need in supporting you, the Member, in performing your Parliamentary duties;
• able and (if necessary) qualified to do the job;
• actually doing the job

and that the resulting costs, in so far as they are charged to this allowance, are reasonable and entirely attributable to the Member's Parliamentary work."

In accordance with the procedures set out in the enclosed note, I should be grateful if you will let me have your response to Mr Barnbrook's complaint. It would be helpful if, in so doing, you could tell me:

1.  for how long your son has been working for you?

2.  what have been his hours of work and the precise nature of his duties?

3.  what are his qualifications for undertaking these duties?

4.  how much has he been paid to do them?

When I have your response, I will consult the Director of Operations in the Department of Finance and Administration (… to whom I am copying this letter,) before letting you know how I intend to proceed.

5 June 2007

5.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway, 8 June 2007

Thank you for your letter of 5th June and for the enclosures concerning the complaint of Mr Michael Barnbrook. The definition of a 'full-time' undergraduate implies that Freddie was engaged at university for a majority of his time, which is not the case.

Very few, if any, undergraduate courses require attendance for twelve months a year and it would not be unfair to observe that his Geography course, since completed, was not particularly time-demanding. Many undergraduates undertake part-time work, which does not necessarily detract from their partial studies.

He commenced on 1^st September 2004, on a part-time Contract of Employment, a copy of which is appended. He will terminate in August 2007.

Item 4 of the Contract of Employment sets the hours as for part-time staff to be 'as arranged'. None of my staff has ever been required to maintain a time-sheet.

His Job Description, also attached, formed part of the Contract of Employment and was the format recommended by the House authorities at the time. In practice he had no involvement with Constituency support as I divide the workload so that anything with an Electoral Register number is dealt with in my constituency office and all other matters in my parliamentary office.

His principal function was one of research, assisting me in general and with my particular interests in foreign affairs and defence, as an Officer of the Inter Parliamentary Union British Group, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch, UK Delegate to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Officer of several bi-lateral and regional All Party Groups, Executive of the British American Parliamentary Group, IPU International Facilitator for Cyprus and Member of the Defence Select Committee.

There are no qualifications for such duties but he gained top grades from A level examinations and the political and foreign affairs aspects of his Geography undergraduate course were relevant to the foreign data and the research I required in support of my extensive foreign and defence affairs interests.

Mr Bird will report to you on the specifics of his remuneration and my records are not complete, but his initial contract was for £10,000 per annum and then increased to £981.08 per month; the present level. In addition, occasional bonus sums were paid.

I understand his remuneration to be within the scales issued by the Finance & Administration Department.

I have asked Mr Bird if he is able to send me a copy of his report to you.

I understand the duty placed upon you to answer Mr. Barnbrook's complaint and I hope the information provided enables you to conclude that no breach of the requirements of the House has occurred.

8 June 2007

6.  Job Description of Freddie Conway

Job title:      Research Assistant

Responsible to:    The Member of Parliament for Old Bexley & Sidcup

Main Role:    The duty of the Research Assistant is that of support and assistance to the Member of Parliament. Duties can be wide-ranging and the post requires the ability to communicate at all levels, conduct research on designated projects and assist in drafting speeches.

Constituency:    The Research Assistant may be required to deal with constituents who contact the constituency office or the House of Commons, investigating the circumstances of their case.

Parliamentary:    The Research Assistant will, from time to time, be allocated research projects which will involve gathering briefing from the Parliamentary information network, Departments of State, Conservative Central Office Research Department or external bodies to which the subject matter may relate.

This information will be collated and presented in an ordered format by the Research Assistant.

Record Systems:    The Research Assistant will maintain subject matter files, and ensure the safekeeping of completed projects.

Liaison:      The Research Assistant will be responsible for liaising with the Parliamentary Personal Assistant, the Constituency Personal Assistant to the MP and other Research and Media assistants, local Members of the European Parliament, the Member of the Greater London Assembly, local Councillors and the Old Bexley & Sidcup Conservative Association.

Attitude:      This part-time post establishes the holder as the personal representative of the Member of Parliament. The attitude both verbal and written when dealing with the groups set out above, should be polite and efficient.

Confidentiality:    The post-holder is required to accept that the responsibilities required of a Research Assistant require a high level of confidentiality.

7.  Letter to Mr Derek Conway from the Commissioner, 26 June 2007

I am sorry not to have acknowledged earlier your letter and enclosures of 8 June. I am afraid I have been dealing with other pressing matters.

As I indicated when I wrote on 5 June, I am in touch with the Department of Finance and Administration, whose advice I will seek in the light of your response. I will contact you again when I have received and considered that advice.

I am grateful for the information about your son's contract and duties which you have given me in your letter. Would it be possible for you to fill that out by listing for me the specific pieces of research work which he has undertaken over, say, the last 12 months in support of you and your Parliamentary interests? Given that you say you have no record of the hours worked by your son, that would seem a possible way of giving some detailed substance to your description of the work he has done for you. It would also be helpful if you could at least give me an estimate of the hours per week your son has worked, during, respectively, term time and vacation periods.

There are two other queries I have. You say that your son had no involvement with your constituency support. Can you please tell me where he has been based when doing work for you? Would his work have been seen by any person other than yourself, and if so, can you please identify them?

Finally, are you able to give me any indication of the pattern of your son's work, i.e. whether it was mainly done in vacations or evenly spread throughout the year? I ask this because the Bexley Times article forwarded by Mr Barnbrook quotes you as saying that the payment to your son was for "part-time holiday work".

I shall be grateful for any further help you can give me on these matters.

26 June 2007

8.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway, 4 July 2007

Thank you for your letter of 26 June 2007 and for the further advice given.

With regard to paragraph three, no record of work is kept for any of my staff. It had not occurred to me that such a record would ever be required and I doubt if any colleague maintains such a record.

As I mentioned in paragraph four of my letter to you dated 8 June 2007, his Contract specified part-time, but no record of weekly or monthly hours was required or has been maintained.

With regard to location, he has a part-time Researcher's Pass and a key to my office. I have only one work-station allocated to me and used by a full-time staffer, so when on the Parliamentary Estate he has used my office, which is isolated and on the ground floor of Speaker's House.

The nature of my support requirement from Freddie meant much of the research could be done on his laptop so he could access the internet from my office, office at home or wherever a broadband facility has availability.

The statement about constituency support is not absolute in that he would help me with photocopying and folding mail-outs, stuffing envelopes, etc. By the phrase in my letter of 8 June, I meant he was not based in my Sidcup office nor had dealings with constituents.

The pattern of work was variable and not exclusive to certain months. I do not record my conversations with local journalists so cannot vouch for the accuracy of the report Mr Barnbrook has given you but the phrase "part-time and holiday work" gives a more accurate reflection of Freddie's commitment than Mr Barnbrook's "full-time student".

I realise it would be preferable to be able to place before you a set of time sheets, work records, etc, but they simply do not exist.

This charge by Mr Barnbrook does not compare with that against Mr Duncan Smith. In that instance allegations were made by his senior staff, whereas in this case Mr Barnbrook can have no idea of my workload or what support I have to fulfil a very wide remit of interests.

Mr Barnbrook is a serial complainer to your office and I find it difficult to answer charges which cannot be sustained. I doubt many, if any, Members of Parliament could provide the evidence required and I hope you will conclude that given Freddie's part-time studies, the entire basis of the Sunday Times report and Mr Barnbrook's subsequent complaint was based on a misconception of how much time an undergraduate on an humanities course has to spend in formal contact with tutors.

4 July 2007

9.  Letter to Mr Derek Conway from the Commissioner, 24 July 2007

Further to my e-mail in reply to yours of 16 July, I have now received from the Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) details of your son's contract of employment and remuneration over the period since he has been working for you.

The contract held by the Department is different from the one you forwarded to me in that it states that your son's net weekly working hours are seventeen and "As Arranged". The explanation for this difference is, I am told, probably that the Department returned to you the contract when it was initially submitted in September 2004 because details were omitted. The working hours were then added and you and your son initialled the addition. I enclose a copy of the contract as held by the Department.

As to your son's remuneration, the DFA tells me that your son was originally employed as a Research Assistant from 1 September 2004 on a salary of £10,000 per annum. In February 2005 you requested an increase in the salary to £11,773 p.a., backdated to the start of your son's employment. For 17 hours work a week, this is equivalent to a full time rate of £25,970, which is within the pay range permitted by the House.

In addition to his salary, paid monthly, your son has, on your instruction, been paid the following one-off sums:

• £2,000 in September 2005
• £5,000 in May 2006
• £1,300 in January 2007

No explanation was given to the Department of the justification for these one-off payments, although the Department's assumption is that they were some sort of 'overtime' payment for extra work done. It would be helpful if you would clarify for me the purpose of and justification for these extra payments.

In May 2007, a bonus was paid to your son of £1,765.94. You originally requested, I am told, payment of a bonus of £5,000 but this exceeded the maximum allowable and so the payment was reduced to the sum I have mentioned.

By my calculation, this means that by the time your son ceases to work for you (as currently expected) at the end of August 2007, he will have been paid a total of some £40-50,000 from public funds.

In my letter of 5 June seeking your initial response to Mr Barnbrook's complaint, I quoted those provisions of the Green Book which make clear that it is a Member's responsibility to ensure that staff paid from the Parliamentary Staffing Allowance are employed on Parliamentary duties to meet a genuine need, are able and qualified to do the job, and actually do it (Green Book paragraph 6.2.1). In reply to Mr Barnbrook's complaint, you have told me that your son:

• was principally employed to undertake research to assist you in general and with your varied interests in foreign affairs and defence.
• had gained top grades at A level and was undertaking an undergraduate course in Geography, some aspects of which were relevant to his research duties.
• was able to accommodate the work required within the demands of his university course.

However, you have not been able:

• to give me any indication of the hours actually worked by your son.
• to give me specific examples of work actually done by your son.
• to name any person, other than yourself and your son, who would have been in a position to see the work done for you by your son.

You have told me that:

"None of my staff has ever been required to maintain a time-sheet."

However, as paragraph 6.9.8 of the Green Book makes clear it is a Member's responsibility to keep records other than records of payment, including records of contractual changes, holidays and sickness absence.

In your e-mail of 16 July, you told me that your son had sustained, in February of this year, a serious injury …, which had required extensive treatment. The DFA tells me that it has not, at any point, been notified of sick leave taken by your son as a result of this injury, or indeed for any other reason.

I understand your concern about the impact of an inquiry into these matters on your son. However, I am afraid I am not satisfied that, on the evidence currently available to me, I would be in any way justified in dismissing Mr Barnbrook's complaint.

I therefore intend to pursue my inquiries into the matter, which will inevitably include interviewing you, your son and others including your Parliamentary staff. Unless these inquiries produce clear and convincing evidence that the payments made to your son were justified, I am afraid I shall have no alternative but to report accordingly to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

It would be helpful if you will let me know your availability and that of your son over the forthcoming recess.

24 July 2007

10.  Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway, 11 October 2007

This letter seeks to answer the various questions you have raised concerning the employment of my son, Freddie Conway (FEC). He was employed as a part-time research assistant from 1 September 2004 until 24 August 2007. I below set out the details of some of the research and general support he carried out on my behalf. He also assisted me generally in the performance of my parliamentary duties in the ways that I have also set out. The term "research assistant" accurately describes part of what Freddie did. In my judgement he was qualified to carry out the tasks I required him to perform. I hope you will be satisfied that he did do the work he was employed to perform. He also carried out a number of other tasks in connection with my work as a Member of Parliament. The term "research assistant" is a generic term commonly used in the House for parliamentary assistants and was one recommended to me by the House authorities when drawing up the contract and I believe it fairly describes what Freddie did. The job description is that of support to the Member of Parliament and speaks of the duties being wide-ranging. This job description was approved by the House authorities. The work Freddie did was done at my direction and I take full responsibility for his employment and his discharge of his duties under his contract of employment.

As you will know, the level of activity in Parliament varies throughout the year. Freddie has performed work for me throughout the year, under his contract of employment which was essential for me to perform my parliamentary duties. What he did for me related to my extensive activities covering my duties to the constituency, responsibilities in the House and involvement in international affairs. I shall explain what these duties were and how Freddie assisted me as a part-time researcher. I apologise for the length of this response but I wanted to ensure that you had all the facts before you bearing in mind, as I explain below, that there is unfortunately a lack of documentation for the reasons I have set out.

I doubt if any two MPs work in the same way. An individualistic if not idiosyncratic approach to the duties and responsibilities that attend the position is the norm. Like so many other MPs, I did not work anything remotely resembling a Monday to Friday, nine to five existence and therefore the support I had in place to sustain such a wide variety of activities and interests reflected that. I would like to emphasise the breadth of the matters that I had to cover as a relatively senior MP and also the system of work that I adopted. I would like to stress that I am a person who prefers to work with hard copy and to use briefing papers for the task in hand. I am afraid that I am not as skilled with computers as some others of my parliamentary colleagues and to supplement this deficiency I relied heavily on the assistance given to me by Freddie.

It is difficult to give a consistent weekly pattern of Freddie's activities as my requirements were so varied. During an average week in London he would produce research briefings in the extract format that suited me, in addition to helping with emails and more general administrative tasks set out below. When he was at university the support would be a continuation of the briefing extracts as required and newspaper cuttings on international coverage. At weekends in London, he would assist with continued email monitoring and post, therefore his week was as mine, not Monday to Friday.

Some weeks would be busier than others and therefore a consistent flow of hours worked is difficult to create. I am afraid that I have not kept a log of the precise hours worked by Freddie. I was satisfied Freddie was working the appropriate number of hours under his contract and I did not think it was necessary to keep precise records of how long he did work.

Because there are no such records I will have, therefore, to give you an example of what he would do in an average week in terms of hours spent when he was working in London. I will do a similar exercise in respect of his work when he was at university but I think it may be clearer if I set that out after I have explained what my duties were and the areas in which I was assisted by Freddie.

1.  International activities

During the period concerned I was a representative of our Parliament to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, an officer of both the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and an officer of several All-Party Parliamentary Groups.

Freddie would assist me in these foreign affairs responsibilities and interests by keeping agenda notices and meeting papers in the Raise Again File and by providing press cuttings of articles related to a schedule of countries. Under the system I used, Raise Again meant papers that were needed for a forthcoming meeting and which would be brought to the front of the file as the meeting came closer. This would be a file that needed updating regularly, but not daily, so Freddie could do it at the time that suited him best. Where my position in an All-Party Group was administrative, he would assist in photocopying papers and stuffing envelopes for circulation to colleagues. At my direction he would produce extracts of briefings on a specific country or issue. I should explain that I mention all these areas as they were all matters that required work from time to time and which he would have dealt with in the three years that he worked for me.

1.1.  UK Representative to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) Parliamentary Assembly

1.2.  Delegate to the Political Committee of NATO-PA

1.3.  Delegate to the Economics Committee of NATO-PA

1.4.  Member of the Transatlantic Relations Sub-Committee, NATO-PA

1.5.  Vice-Chairman, British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union (BG-IPU)

1.6.  International Facilitator for Cyprus, Inter-Parliamentary Union Council.

1.7.  UK Representative, 12+Regional Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union

1.8.  Member, Inter-Parliamentary Union Council

1.9.  Member British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union Delegation Selection Panel

1.10.  Chairman BG-IPU Out-Del Briefing Sessions

1.11.  Chairman BG-IPU Out-Del Report Back Sessions

1.12.  Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

1.13.  Member UK-CPA Finance & Audit Committee

1.14.  Chairman, British-Morocco All-Party Group

1.15.  Board Member, Moroccan-British Society

1.16.  Chairman, British-Venezuelan All-Party Group

1.17.  Vice-Chairman, British-Turkish All-Party Group

1.18.  Vice-Chairman, British-Canadian All-Party Group

1.19.  Secretary, United Arab Emirates All-Party Group

1.20.  Vice-Chairman, British Virgin Islands All-Party Group

1.21.  Vice-Chairman, British-Montserrat All-Party Group

1.22.  Vice-Chairman, All-Party Caribbean Group

1.23.  Secretary, Central American All-Party Group

1.24.  Vice-Chairman, Dominican Republic All-Party Group

1.25.  Treasurer Turks & Caicos All-Party Group

1.26.  Vice-Chairman, Trinidad & Tobago Group

1.27.  Vice-Chairman, Belize All-Party Group

1.28.  Executive Committee Member, British-American Parliamentary Group

2.  Foreign Country Briefing

Freddie would support me by pulling together information on a country I was to visit or when I was to attend an All-Party meeting or receive an ambassador or visiting group of ministers or parliamentarians.

As a research source he had access to the usual general reference sites but he was also able to procure academic work through the university library. His degree modules reflected his interest in foreign affairs covering subjects such as world development, politics of the middle-east, international perspectives on race and third world development.

From an examination of my diaries which show what I was working on at the time and also from my memory of the work that Freddie was doing for me, I have set out on a month by month basis the projects upon which he was assisting me by doing research.

This is by no means an exhaustive list as he would also provide me with briefing extracts on issues that he knew to be of interest to me, for example Islamist terrorism, though perhaps not related to an impending meeting or visit.

2.1.  September 2004

2:1:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC's meeting with British Virgin Islands Chief Minister as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:1:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC's meeting with the Angolan IPU delegation as Vice-Chairman of the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:1:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC's meeting with visiting Turkish business representatives, as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:1:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States political issues.

2:1:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC's meeting with visiting German group as Vice-Chairman British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.2.  October 2004

2:2:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's visit to Rabat for the state Opening of the Moroccan Parliament and to meet HM King Mohamed VI & Foreign Minister Benaissa.

2:2:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United Nations issues for DC's visit to New York for IPU-UN session as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.3.  November 2004

2:3:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC on United States for DC's meeting on forthcoming elections.

2:3:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts for DC's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting on Kenya.

2:3:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's reception for visiting Turkish MPs group, as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:3:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's reception for their Prime Minister, as Chairman of the All-Party Group. I recollect particularly that Freddie had a special interest in Morocco and that we discussed the Human Rights situation in Morocco.

2:3:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on the British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting with Chief Minister as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2.4.  December 2004

2:4:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's British-American Parliamentary Group meeting.

2:4:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for EU statement.

2:4:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Italy for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as a Member of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Council.

2:4:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Switzerland for DC's meeting with Swiss MPs & Ambassador as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:4:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Montserrat for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:4:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turks & Caicos for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2.5.  January 2005

2:5:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on the British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:5:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Overseas Territories for DC's Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting.

2:5:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's visit to Wiltshire Moroccan Community as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group, with Dr. Andrew Murrison MP.

2:5:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Austria for DC's All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting.

2:5:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Finland for DC's All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting

2:5:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Caribbean issues for DC's meeting with the Caribbean Council.

2.6.  February 2005

2:6:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Palestinian issues for DC's reception.

2:6:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's reception for Turkish MPs delegation as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:6:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Pakistan, for DC's meeting with their visiting Speaker and MPs as Vice-Chairman UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2:6:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Italy for DC's meeting with the Speaker of Italian Parliament, as Council Member, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:6:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Caribbean issues for DC's Caribbean trade meeting

2:6:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC to host visiting Congressmen.

2:6:7  FEC prepares updated briefing extracts on Morocco for DC as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to host visiting Moroccan Chamber of Deputies delegation.

2.7.  March 2005

2:7:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC as Vice-Chairman of the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union to host visiting Turkish MPs.

2:7:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:7:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group with their Ambassador.

2:7:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United Arab Emirates for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:7:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Caribbean issues for DC's meeting with the Caribbean Council.

2.8.  May 2005

2:8:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's meeting.

2:8:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Commonwealth issues for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the UK Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2.9.  June 2005

2:9:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Taiwan for DC's meeting with Taipei Representative as Vice-Chairman British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:9:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on the British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2.10.  July 2005

2:10:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:10:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Canada for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:10:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turks & Caicos for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group meeting.

2:10:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Caribbean issue for DC's meeting with the Caribbean Council.

2:10:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Trinidad & Tobago DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:10:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting with HM Ambassador as Chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:10:7  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's British American Parliamentary Group meeting.

2.11.  October 2005

2:11:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's conference as Chairman of All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:11:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on British Virgin Islands for DC to host visiting Chief Minister as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2:11:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on the United Arab Emirates for DC's meeting as Hon. Secretary of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2.12.  November 2005

2:12:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:12:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Argentina to chair Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting.

2:12:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Uruguay to chair Inter-Parliamentary Union meeting.

2:12:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Denmark for DC's visit to Copenhagen as UK NATO-PA Delegate.

2:12:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Russia for DC's meeting with member of the Duma.

2:12:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Poland for DC's meeting with Polish MPs.

2:12:7  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's meeting with their Ambassador.

2.13.  December 2005

2:13:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Antigua for DC's meeting with HM High Commissioner.

2.14.  January 2006

2:14:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC to host visiting Human Rights group as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:14:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Canada for DC to host visiting British Columbia Speaker as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:14:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Montenegro for DC to host visitors as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:14:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on New Zealand for DC to host meeting as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2:14:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Australia for meeting as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2:14:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Thailand for DC to receive visiting MPs as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:14:7  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Israel for DC's meeting as member of the 12+ Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.15.  February 2006

2:15:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Antigua for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2:15:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Grenada for DC to host High Commissioner, as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2:15:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on St. Lucia for DC to meet their High Commissioner, as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2.16.  March 2006

2:16:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's meeting with visiting Turkish MPs as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:16:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Caribbean for DC's meeting with the Caribbean Council.

2:16:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on the British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting with their UK Representative as Vice-Chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:16:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:16:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Dominican Republic for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2:16:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Kenya for DC's meeting with their High Commissioner as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2.17.  April 2006

2:17:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Egypt for DC's meeting with their Prime Minister and Foreign Minister.

2:17:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Guatemala for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.18.  May 2006

2:18:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Trinidad & Tobago for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:18:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Kenya for DC's Inter-Parliamentary Union conference as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:18:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on France for DC's meeting with HM Ambassador.

2.19.  June 2006

2:19:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Iceland for DC to host visiting Icelandic MPs as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:19:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's visit as Member of the Transatlantic Sub-Committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

2:19:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Nepal for DC's meeting with their Speaker as Vice-Chairman, British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.20.  July 2006

2:20:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Egypt for DC's meeting.

2:20:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United Arab Emirates for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:20:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's meeting with visiting American politics students as Executive Member, British American Parliamentary Group.

2:20:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group as Chairman.

2:20:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's meeting with their Foreign Minister as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:20:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Cyprus for DC's meeting with their High Commissioner as Inter-Parliamentary Union Facilitator.

2:20:7  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Jamaica for DC's meeting with the delegation of Jamaican MPs as Vice-Chairman of the UK Branch, Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.

2.21.  September 2006

2:21:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Cyprus for DC's meeting with their Speaker and Cypriot MPs as Inter-Parliamentary Union Facilitator for Cyprus.

2:21:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Trinidad & Tobago for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:21:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Austria for DC's meeting with visiting MPs as Vice-Chairman, British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:21:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Kosovo for DC's NATO visit to meet their Prime Minister and MPs.

2:21:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United Nations Special Representative for Kosovo for DC's meeting.

2.22.  October 2006

2:22:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Switzerland for DC's meeting with visiting MPs as Member 12+ Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:22:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turkey for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:22:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Central American issues for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:22:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Tanzania for DC to host visiting Tanzanian MPs as Vice-Chairman of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:22:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:22:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Turks & Caicos for DC's meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary Group as Vice-Chairman.

2:22:7  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Finland for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.23.  November 2006

2:23:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Belize for DC's meeting with their Prime Minister as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:23:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Canada for DC's meeting with their High Commissioner, as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2:23:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United Arab Emirates for DC's meeting as an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:23:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Jordan for DC's, meeting for the visit of His Majesty The King, as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:23:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting with HRH Princess Lala Julmaila, as a Member of the Board of the Moroccan British Society.

2:23:6  FEC prepares briefing extracts on United States for DC's meeting with their Ambassador.

2.24.  December 2006

2:24:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting with Moroccan community leaders as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:24:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Iraq for DC's meeting with visiting Iraqi parliamentary leaders as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.25.  January 2007

2:25:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Canada for DC's meeting with delegation of Canadian MPs as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2:25:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Indonesia for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:25:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Belize for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2:25:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Madagascar for DC to chair meeting as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.26.  February 2007

2:26:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Germany for DC's meeting with German MPs as NATO-Parliamentary Assembly delegate.

2:26:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Morocco for DC's meeting as Chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group.

2:26:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Iraq for DC's meeting with visiting Iraqi Speaker, as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:26:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on British Virgin Islands for DC's meeting with their Chief Minister, as Vice-Chairman of the all-Party Group.

2:26:5  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Bolivia for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2.27.  March 2007

2:27:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on France for DC's meeting with HM Ambassador.

2:27:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Ukraine for DC's meeting with their Foreign Minister as NATO-Parliamentary Assembly delegate.

2.28.  April 2007

2:28:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Italy for DC's meeting with their Foreign Minister, as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:28:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Indonesia for DC's meeting with their Ambassador as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:28:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Burundi for DC to host their visiting Vice-President, as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:28:4  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Dominican Republic for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the All-Party Group.

2.29.  May 2007

2:29:1  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Mexico for DC's meeting as Vice-Chairman of the British Group, Inter-Parliamentary Union.

2:29:2  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Portugal for DC's meeting as NATO Parliamentary Assembly delegate.

2:29:3  FEC prepares briefing extracts on Japan for DC's meeting with their Foreign and Defence Ministers as Member of NATO Parliamentary Assembly Political Committee.

3.  Speaker's Panel of Chairmen

Freddie would assist me in preparation for the committee stage of Bills. Once a Bill I was to chair in Standing Committee had secured its Second Reading, Freddie would assist me by relating the sections and clauses of the Draft Bill to the Explanatory Notes "flagging-up" and marking the latter so that during the cut and thrust of committee sessions I could quickly check that contributions to a given clause were in Order and that the Member speaking was following the purpose of the clause under consideration. This would be updated as the committee sessions progressed.

I did not retain these heavily annotated Bills and Explanatory Notes when the Committee Stage was concluded for as chairman I was precluded from taking any further part in the consideration by the House of the legislation at Report and Third Reading. I wished to supply you with an example of legislation I had chaired but the Vote Office does not retain Bills and Explanatory Notes either, once the legislation has been passed, so they can only offer an actual Act.

From September 2004 I chaired:-

3:1  Penalties for Disorderly Behaviour (Minimum Age) Order

3:2  Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill

3:3  Fishing Boats (Satellite-Tracking Devices) (England) Order

3:4  School Transport Bill

3:5  Electricity and Gas (Energy Efficiency Obligations) Order

3:6  Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order

3:7  Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amount) (England) Order

During 2005 I chaired:-

3:8  Identity Cards Bill

3:9  Southern Regional F