House of Commons Committee on Standards and Privileges Mr Derek Conway MP
Third Report of Session 2008-09
Report, Annex and Appendices, together with formal minutes
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 27 January 2009
HC 207 Published on 29 January 2009 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00
The Committee on Standards and Privileges
The Committee on Standards and Privileges is appointed by the House of Commons to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in the Code of Conduct which have been drawn to the Committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to the Code of Conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
Current membership Rt Hon Sir George Young Bt MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) (Chairman) Rt Hon Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Rt Hon David Curry MP (Conservative, Skipton & Ripon) Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Nick Harvey MP (Liberal Democrat, North Devon) Mr Elfyn Llwyd MP (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) Mr Chris Mullin MP (Labour, Sunderland South) The Hon Nicholas Soames MP (Conservative, Mid Sussex) Mr Paddy Tipping MP (Labour, Sherwood) Dr Alan Whitehead MP (Labour, Southampton Test)
Powers The constitution and powers of the Committee are set out in Standing Order No. 149. In particular, the Committee has power to order the attendance of any Member of Parliament before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before the Committee. The Committee has power to refuse to allow its public proceedings to be broadcast. The Law Officers, if they are Members of Parliament, may attend and take part in the Committee’s proceedings, but may not vote.
Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/sandp.
Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mr Steve Priestley (Clerk), Mrs Sarah Hartwell-Naguib (Second Clerk) and Ms Jane Cooper (Committee Assistant).
Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to The Clerk of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, Journal Office, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6615.
Mr Derek Conway MP 1
Contents
Report Page
Mr Derek Conway MP 3 Introduction 3 The complaint 3 The Commissioner’s findings 4 What work did Henry Conway do? 4 How much was Henry Conway paid for this work? 5 Were the sums paid to Henry Conway justified? 5 Conclusion 8
Annex 10
Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 11
Appendix 2: Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr Derek Conway MP, 16 January 2009 144
Formal minutes 147
Mr Derek Conway MP 3
Mr Derek Conway MP
Introduction
1. In January 2008, this Committee reported on the outcome of the investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards of a complaint against Mr Derek Conway, the Member for Bexley and Old Sidcup.1 In upholding the complaint, the then Commissioner concluded that Mr Conway had overpaid his younger son, Freddie Conway, whom he had employed as his Parliamentary research assistant, and had awarded him excessive bonuses.2 The Committee accepted these findings and concluded that a serious breach of the rules had taken place.3
2. The previous Commissioner noted that Mr Conway had earlier employed his elder son, Henry Conway, in a similar capacity.4 Mr Conway’s employment of Henry Conway had not been part of the original complaint investigated by the Commissioner, and the Commissioner was not, therefore, able to comment on it. However, in February 2008 the current Commissioner received a complaint concerning Mr Conway’s employment of Henry Conway from Mr Duncan Borrowman, accompanied by sufficient evidence to merit an inquiry.5
3. Following a thorough investigation of the complaint, the Commissioner submitted a memorandum to the Committee in January 2009, a copy of which is attached at Appendix 1. In accordance with our usual practice, we sent a copy of the memorandum to Mr Conway and invited him to make any observations, either in writing or in person. Mr Conway replied in writing and a copy of his letter is at Appendix 2.
The complaint
4. Mr Borrowman complained that Henry Conway’s employment appeared to have had similar features to that of his brother, Freddie, and he asked the Commissioner to investigate whether Henry Conway’s employment met the requirements of the House’s guidance to Members on such matters, known as the Green Book.6 In particular, Mr Borrowman questioned whether Henry Conway had been employed to meet a genuine need; whether he was able and qualified to do the job; whether he actually did the job; and whether the resulting costs were reasonable and entirely attributable to Mr Conway’s Parliamentary work.7
1 Fourth Report, Session 2007–08, Conduct of Mr Derek Conway, HC 280 2 Fourth Report, Appendix 1, para 79 3 Fourth Report, para 36 4 Fourth Report, para 52 5 Appendix 1, para 5 6 Appendix 1, WE1 7 These tests are contained in the 2006 edition of the Green Book. The Commissioner has applied the tests in the 2001 edition, which was extant at the time of Henry Conway’s employment by Mr Conway.
4 Mr Derek Conway MP
The Commissioner’s findings
What work did Henry Conway do?
5. The Commissioner has established that Henry Conway was employed by Mr Conway from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004, thus overlapping with the employment of Freddie Conway by one month.8 Like his younger brother, Henry Conway was a full-time student at the time he was employed by Mr Conway—initially as an undergraduate and later as a postgraduate.9
6. Henry Conway’s duties as Mr Conway’s research assistant were set out in his contract of employment and were wide-ranging. They included the performance of functions unrelated to research, such as dealing with constituents.10 In practice, the evidence of Henry Conway and of Mr Conway is that he spent about half his time on research-related work, such as summarising or annotating documents and producing short briefing papers, and about half his time on administrative and office tasks, including opening post and filing.11
7. No documentary or other hard evidence of the work carried out by Henry Conway has survived.12 Mr Conway sent the Commissioner a photograph of Henry Conway with a foreign ambassador taken on the Parliamentary estate;13 we do not regard this as hard evidence of work carried out. However, Henry Conway was a student at the Courtauld Institute of Art near Westminster; he lived at his parents’ flat in Westminster; and he was seen about the Palace of Westminster on several occasions.14 The Commissioner concludes, on the basis of the evidence he has seen, that Henry Conway did undertake work for Mr Conway during the period of his employment.15 The Commissioner does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that Henry Conway failed to work the 18 hours a week for which he was contracted and paid.16 In reaching these and his other conclusions, the Commissioner has operated a high standard of proof, reflecting the seriousness of the allegations and the consequences for those involved, if the complaint be upheld.17
8. We agree with that decision and accept the Commissioner’s conclusion that it would be unfair to conclude that Henry Conway did not undertake sufficient work to fulfil the terms of his contract of employment. While we note that there is more circumstantial
8 Appendix 1, para 152 9 Appendix 1, paras 165 and 166 10 Appendix 1, WE10 11 Appendix 1, paras 168 to 170 12 Appendix 1, paras 174, 189 and 191 13 Appendix 1, para 14 14 Appendix 1, paras 171 to 173 and 187 15 Appendix 1, para 179 16 Appendix 1, paras 179 and 192 17 Appendix 1, paras 176 and 177
Mr Derek Conway MP 5
evidence of Henry Conway working for his father than there was in the case of Freddie Conway, it is unfortunate that there is no hard evidence.
9. In his letter to our Chairman of 16 January, commenting on the Commissioner’s memorandum, Mr Conway suggests that some of Henry Conway’s work, such as “organising foreign interest meetings”, “independent editing and responding to emails” and “assessment and preparation of photographs for the local newspapers” was more commensurate with the work expected of a senior Parliamentary researcher or assistant, which attracts a higher scale of remuneration than the grade Henry Conway was in.18 However, we note that much of the office work carried out by Henry Conway was of a type normally carried out by junior secretarial staff, who are on a lower pay scale than that on which Henry Conway was paid.19
How much was Henry Conway paid for this work?
10. Henry Conway’s contracted hours of employment as Mr Conway’s Parliamentary research assistant were 18 hours a week. His rate of pay for these hours was initially £8,000 per annum, which is equivalent to £16,667 pro rata.20 This was increased by one quarter in March 2003, to £10,000 per annum, backdated to 1 April 2002.21 This was equivalent to £20,833 pro rata.22 Henry Conway was paid bonuses of £1,200 in 2001-02, £1,138 in 2002- 03 and £1,500 in 2003-04.23 He received an overtime payment of £829 in April 2004.24 Henry Conway’s gross total remuneration during the period he worked for Mr Conway was £35,744.25
Were the sums paid to Henry Conway justified?
11. We have accepted the Commissioner’s finding that it would be unfair to conclude that Henry Conway did not work the hours for which he was paid. However, a further question has to be asked: was the work carried out by Henry Conway commensurate with his remuneration?
12. The Commissioner concludes that the clerical and administrative aspects of Henry Conway’s job were not demanding, and that the research-related work was relatively simple.26 As we have seen, Mr Conway disagrees. Guidance to Members issued by the Fees Office in July 2001 stated 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’
18 Appendix 2 19 See www.w4mp.org/html/library/salaries/payrates_apr2006.pdf 20 Appendix 1, paras 153 and 162 21 Appendix 1, para 157 22 Appendix 1, para 162 23 Appendix 1, para 154 24 Appendix 1, para 155 25 Appendix 1, para 163 26 Appendix 1, paras 193 and 194
6 Mr Derek Conway MP
experience transferring from another Member.”27 The Commissioner does not consider that Henry Conway was particularly well qualified to be a Parliamentary research assistant; he finds that Henry Conway’s research and office skills alike were “basic” and that he lacked paid experience.28 The July 2001 guidance suggested that Parliamentary research assistants are likely to be graduates;29 for most of his period of employment by Mr Conway, Henry Conway was an undergraduate. However, the Commissioner also notes that Henry Conway’s basic skills met the requirements of his employer. Although Mr Conway has suggested that Henry Conway was in fact carrying out work which would normally be carried out by someone in a more senior grade, he has not sought to suggest to us that Henry Conway was qualified to be employed in that grade.
13. The Commissioner concludes that, at £800 pro rata above the minimum starting salary for a London-based Parliamentary research assistant, Henry Conway’s initial salary of £8,000 was reasonable, but only because the level was set before guidance on starting salaries was issued.30 However, at £10,000 per annum for all but the first nine months of his employment, Henry Conway’s later salary was, at over £20,000 pro rata, significantly above the lower end of the approved pay scales for such research assistants. On the basis of an 18- hour working week, the Commissioner’s memorandum shows that Henry Conway was paid annually more than £2,000 above the starting rate in each of the years 2002–03 to 2004-05.31 The Commissioner concludes that this level of salary was not justified, because of the low calibre of the work and because of Mr Henry Conway’s lack of relevant experience.32 The Commissioner sums up his investigation as follows:
I conclude therefore that Mr Conway breached the rules of the House by paying his son [Henry Conway] in the last 2½ years of his employment from April 2002 to 1 October 2004 at above the level which was necessary for the type of duties he performed, with the result that this excessive element of his Parliamentary expenditure was not necessarily incurred.33
14. Mr Conway takes issue with this. Mr Conway states in his letter to the Chairman that he “acted properly in reflecting Henry’s ongoing experience and good performance in the pay-level set.”34 We take this to be intended as a justification for the 25% pay rise given to Henry Conway in March 2003, backdated to 1 April 2002, by when Henry Conway had been in post for nine months. Mr Conway has not submitted any performance appraisals or other evidence which would allow us to judge whether Henry Conway’s performance and experience warranted such an increase. Mr Conway does remind us that for the last year of his employment, Henry Conway was a graduate. He invites us to consider:
27 Appendix 1, para 135 28 Appendix 1, para 186 29 Appendix 1, para 134 30 Appendix 1, para 196 31 Appendix 1, para 162 32 Appendix 1, paras 194 and 197 33 Appendix 1, para 202 34 Appendix 2
Mr Derek Conway MP 7
… how could it be fair to endorse his [the Commissioner’s] contention that someone at the commencement of employment and not a graduate is at the same level of competence as someone after two years in post and a graduate?35
But Henry Conway’s pay was not increased after two years, nor was it increased when he graduated. It remained at the same level as was set from April 2002, when Henry Conway had little work experience and was a second-year undergraduate.
15. We recognise that Members are entitled to some discretion as to how much they pay their staff, but as we concluded in our earlier Report:
We do not believe, as a matter of principle given the extent of the salary range, that Members’ discretion in setting salaries can be regarded as completely unfettered. They are required to have regard to whether the costs concerned are ‘necessarily’ incurred, a test which a salary significantly above the market rate would arguably not meet.36
In summing up his inquiry into the present case, the Commissioner has told us that:
For the final two and a half years of his employment I conclude that [Henry Conway] was paid at a level which went beyond the reasonable margin of judgement and discretion which should be properly available to all Members who employ staff. My conclusion is that from April 2002 to October 2004, Mr Conway breached the rules of the House by paying his son above the level which was necessary for the type of duties he performed.37
16. We reject Mr Conway’s assertion, in his letter to the Chairman, that this:
… perverse conclusion is at odds with the Department’s advice to Members, runs contrary to all known personnel management practice and defies logic and fairness. It was reached because the Commissioner repeatedly confuses pay-range (job required) with pay-level (individual’s performance).38
We find Mr Conway’s attempts to justify Henry Conway’s pay level from April 2002 onwards unconvincing. We believe that especial care should be taken by Members when employing relations to ensure that all costs are necessarily incurred and that there is no scope for accusations of special treatment.
17. The Commissioner does not believe that it was unreasonable to pay bonuses to Henry Conway at Mr Conway’s request.39 Nor does he feel that, under the high standard of proof to which he has operated, there is sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation that the overtime payment made to Henry Conway in 2004 was not necessary.40 However, these
35 Appendix 2 36 Fourth Report, para 18 37 Appendix 1, para 180 38 Appendix 2 39 Appendix 1, para 200 40 Appendix 1, para 201
8 Mr Derek Conway MP
findings have to be read in the context of the Commissioner’s earlier conclusion that Henry Conway’s salary level for most of the period of his employment by Mr Conway was not justified. This is because employees’ bonuses and overtime payments are based on salary levels.
18. We accept the Commissioner’s conclusions that Henry Conway’s basic research and administrative skills were consistent with Mr Conway’s requirements as his employer; that the starting salary, at £800 above the minimum, was not unreasonably high in the circumstances at the time; and that the decisions to award bonus and overtime payments to Henry Conway were not unreasonable. We agree with the Commissioner that, in the last 2½ years of his employment by Mr Conway, Henry Conway’s salary was unnecessarily high and that, by paying Henry Conway at an unnecessarily high rate, Mr Conway breached the rules of the House.
Conclusion
19. We now turn to the question of how the House should deal with Mr Conway’s breach of its rules. We have concluded that Mr Conway overpaid Henry Conway for most of the period of his employment from 2001 to 2004. The House will wish to know by how much Henry Conway was overpaid. Our detailed calculations are set out in the Annex to this Report.
20. We have accepted that in the circumstances at the time it was not unreasonable for Mr Conway to pay Henry Conway a salary of £800 above what was from 31 July 2001 the recommended starting salary for someone working for 18 hours a week as a Member’s research assistant. We have also concluded that it was unreasonable for Mr Conway to increase that salary by one quarter with effect from just nine months after Henry Conway had started his employment. We agree with the Commissioner that neither the quality of the work nor Henry Conway’s capacity to undertake it increased substantively during the period of his employment. We therefore conclude that it would have been reasonable for Mr Conway to have continued to pay Henry Conway a salary at the same rate he was paid in the first nine months of his employment, increased annually in line with rises in the average earnings index and with an uplift of no more than 2% to reflect satisfactory performance. On the basis of that formula, the gross overpayments made to Henry Conway and the associated National Insurance and pension costs come to £3,757.83.
21. Mr Conway’s employment of Henry Conway lasted from 2001 to 2004; Freddie Conway was employed from 2004 to 2007. So the events which are the subject of this Report occurred before those which were the subject of the previous Report. We bear in mind that Mr Conway apologised for the later offence; he was expelled from his party; he served his period of suspension; and by February 2009 he will have repaid in full the sums he owed to the House. As he himself recognises, Mr Conway’s political career is over.
22. This case has demonstrated a serious lapse of judgment by an experienced Member of the House. Nevertheless, considering it on its own merits, we conclude that a further period of suspension from the House would be a disproportionate sanction to impose.
Mr Derek Conway MP 9
We note, however, that Mr Conway has thus far failed to accept the Commissioner’s findings. We expect him to apologise to the House for his breach of the rules by writing to our Chairman. We also recommend that Mr Conway be required to reimburse the House for the full cost of the overpayments to Henry Conway, totalling £3,757.83.
10 Mr Derek Conway MP
Annex
Allowing for uprating of Henry Conway’s salary in line with the formula set out in paragraph 20 of this Report, we calculate that he was overpaid by £1,576 in 2002–03; by £1,095.83 in 2003–04; and by £309.15 in 2004–05. Together, these sums total £2,980.98. As for bonuses paid to Henry Conway, we find that the bonuses paid in 2002–03 and in 2004– 05 were within 15% of what we maintain would have been a reasonable salary, but that the bonus paid in 2003–04 exceeded that threshold by £164.36. There was thus a gross overpayment to Henry Conway of salary, including bonus, of £3,145.34. In addition, the overtime payment to Henry Conway, assuming it was made at the time-and-a-half rate specified in his contract of employment, included an overpayment of £91.52.
To these sums might be added excessive payments of Employer’s National Insurance contributions totalling £398.55 (including £11.71 in respect of overtime), and excessive pension contributions that come to £122.42 (including £9.15 in respect of overtime). If these are added to the gross salary and overtime overpayments, the total cost to the House of Mr Conway’s overpayments to Henry Conway was £3,757.83.
Mr Derek Conway MP 11
Appendix 1: Memorandum from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
Contents Page
Mr Derek Conway MP 14 Introduction 14 The Complaint 15 Relevant Provisions of the Code of Conduct and Associated Rules 16 My Inquiries 17 Findings of Fact 49 Standard of Proof 53 Conclusions 54 Was there a genuine need? 55 Was Mr Henry Conway able and qualified? 55 Did Mr Henry Conway actually do the job? 56 Was all the expenditure necessary? 57
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards 60 1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Duncan Borrowman, 4 February 2008 60 2. Article in Daily Mail, published 29 January 2008 61 3. Article in Daily Mirror, published 31 January 2008 63 4. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 11 February 2008 64 5. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 11 March 2008 65 6. Mr Henry Conway’s entry in the Register of Interests of Members’ Secretaries and Research Assistants, 13 February 2002 68 7. Article in Daily Mail, 21 February 2008 68 8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary, 25 February 2008 73 9. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary A, 20 February 2008 73 10. Contract of Employment for Mr Henry Conway, 1 July 2001 74 11. Job Description for Mr Henry Conway, 1 July 2001 77 12. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 12 March 2008 78 13. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 31 March 2008 79 14. Letter to the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 12 March 2008 80 15. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 9 April 2008 81 16. Schedule of payments to Mr Henry Conway 82 17. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 15 April 2008 83 18. Form ‘A’ (Secretarial Salaries), 27 November 2001 84 19. Letter to the Fees Office from Mr Derek Conway MP, 11 February 2002 85 20. Letter to the Fees Office from Mr Derek Conway MP, 9 March 2003 85 21. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 4 March 2004 85
12 Mr Derek Conway MP
22. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 15 March 2004 85 23. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 4 September 2004 85 24. Agreed Note of Meeting with Mr Henry Conway, 21 May 2008 86 25. Letter to the Commissioner from a friend of Mr Henry Conway, 29 May 2008 96 26. Letter to the Pass Office Manager from the Commissioner, 3 June 2008 97 27. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 3 June 2008 97 28. Letter to the Commissioner from the Pass Office Manager, 4 June 2008 97 29. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 6 June 2008 98 30. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 10 June 2008 98 31. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 June 2008 99 32. Letter to the Commissioner from Research Assistant, 10 June 2008 100 33. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 20 June 2008 100 34. Agreed Note of meeting with Secretary A, 10 July 2008 100 35. Agreed Note of telephone interview with Research Assistant, 17 July 2008 105 36. Letter to Secretary B from the Commissioner, 31 July 2008 110 37. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary B, 11 August 2008 110 38. Letter to Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary from the Commissioner, 29 July 2008111 39. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary, 6 August 2008 112 40. Extract from article on NatWest Student Living Index, published 7 August 2008 113 41. Comparison of Mr Henry Conway’s pay rates with Department of Finance and Administration recommended pay rates 114 42. Agreed Note of Meeting with Mr Derek Conway MP, 16 September 2008 115 43. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 1 October 2008 125 44. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 16 October 2008 125 45. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 20 October 2008 125 46. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 31 October 2008 126 47. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 3 November 2008 126 48. Letter to Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP from Mr Derek Conway MP, 8 March 2005126 49. Letter to the Serjeant at Arms Office from Mr Derek Conway MP and another Member, 12 February 2003 127 50. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, 11 November 2008 127 51. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 November 2008 127 52. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 19 November 2008 128 53. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, 26 November 2008 129 54. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 6 October 2008 129 55. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 8 October 2008 130 56. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary B, 15 October 2008 130
Mr Derek Conway MP 13
57. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 19 September 2008 130 58. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 2 October 2008 130 59. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008 132 60. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 October 2008 132 61. Letter to Mr Henry Conway from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008 132 62. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Henry Conway, 14 October 2008 133 63. Letter to Mr Henry Conway from the Commissioner, 20 October 2008 133 64. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Henry Conway, 31 October 2008 134 65. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 18 September 2008 134 66. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member Liaison Services, 4 November 2008 135 67. Extracts from letter to Members from the Head of the Fees Office, 11 July 2001 136 68. Extracts from letter to Members from the Head of the Fees Office, 31 July 2001 136 69. Extracts from Job Descriptions and Pay Rates, Guidance for Members, 31 July 2001137 70. Pro forma for job description for Members’ staff 139 71. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 6 November 2008 140 72. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 18 November 2008 141 73. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 21 November 2008 141 74. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008 142 75. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member Liaison Services, 10 November 2008 142 76. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 13 November 2008 143
14 Mr Derek Conway MP
Mr Derek Conway MP
Introduction
1. This memorandum reports my conclusions on a complaint against Mr Derek Conway (the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup—hereafter called ‘Mr Conway’) in respect of the employment of his son, Mr Henry Conway, as his Parliamentary research assistant from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004. The complaint is that the work undertaken by Mr Henry Conway did not justify the payments Mr Conway made to him.
2. This complaint follows the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, and my predecessor’s inquiries into the conduct of Mr Conway in respect of the employment of his son Mr Freddie Conway from 1 September 2004 to 24 August 2007.1 My predecessor referred, however, to the employment of Mr Henry Conway at paragraph 52 of his memorandum in the following terms:2
“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);
…
c) all the above payments had been within the permitted pay ranges for the research assistant grade.”
3. In its report the Committee compared the level of bonuses paid to Mr Freddie Conway with the bonuses paid to Mr Conway’s staff for the three years previous to his employment as follows:
“… we note that all bonuses for staff authorised by Mr Conway in the previous three years were within the permitted level.”3
4. Following publication of the Committee’s report, I received a number of complaints asking me to investigate the circumstances of Mr Conway’s employment of his staff, in particular other members of his family. I inquire into complaints only when I am satisfied that the complainant has provided me with sufficient evidence to merit at least a preliminary inquiry that there may have been a breach of the Code of Conduct for
1 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report, Session 2007-08, HC 280. 2 Ibid, Appendix 1, paragraph 52. 3 Ibid, paragraph 28.
Mr Derek Conway MP 15
Members or its associated rules. In most cases, I was not satisfied that the complainants had provided me with sufficient evidence of a particular breach of the rules to merit an inquiry. I do not consider that the fact that Mr Conway had been found in breach of the rules in respect of his employment of Mr Freddie Conway was sufficient to suggest a breach of the rules in respect of the employment of other members of Mr Conway’s staff.
5. On 4 February 2008, however, I received a complaint which I considered did provide me with sufficient evidence to merit an inquiry.
The Complaint
6. The complainant, Mr Duncan Borrowman, wrote to me on 4 February with the substance of his complaint.4 He had written to me previously but had not, in my judgment, provided me with sufficient evidence at that time to merit an inquiry by me. In his letter he withdrew an earlier complaint in respect of the employment of another member of Mr Conway’s staff, and provided further evidence for his complaint about the employment of Mr Henry Conway. Mr Borrowman enclosed with his letter of 4 February articles from the Daily Mail of 29 January 2008 and from the Daily Mirror of 31 January.5 He noted that these reports suggested that Mr Henry Conway’s work pattern was similar to that described in the Committee’s report for Mr Freddie Conway. He noted that it appeared that Mr Henry Conway worked from his parent’s flat in Victoria where he would “fillet post, scrutinise e-mails and stuff envelopes”. Mr Borrowman said that it was clear that Mr Henry Conway undertook this work “while both a student and having a much publicised hectic social life”. He noted the Daily Mail reported that Mr Henry Conway had received bonus payments at or below the set 15% maximum level and an overtime payment of £829.33 in 2003-04. This raised for him the question of “how Mr Henry Conway could have found not only the time to do the contracted work, but also be a student and lead his lifestyle and what extra hours he would have worked to earn such an overtime payment and bonus payment”.
7. Mr Borrowman noted that the Committee’s report about Mr Conway’s employment of Mr Freddie Conway showed that there was no evidence that Mr Freddie Conway had undertaken the work described, but also that there was no evidence that he had not undertaken the work. He suggested that if this was again the picture with Mr Henry Conway, there would need to be further questions as to the status of the work that Mr Henry Conway did or did not do. He believed there were questions as to whether the work that Mr Henry Conway is said to have undertaken would have occupied the hours required by his contract, whether the salary paid was appropriate, what the bonus payments would be for and how overtime payments could be incurred.
4 WE 1 5 WE 2 and WE 3
16 Mr Derek Conway MP
Relevant Provisions of the Code of Conduct and Associated Rules
8. The Code of Conduct for Members provides in paragraph 14 as follows:
“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.”
9. The Green Book on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions published in February 2001 provides in paragraph 4.1.2 as follows:
“The Office Costs Allowance (OCA) should be used to cover the normal expenses required to set up and run a parliamentary office, including the payment of secretarial and research assistance. To qualify for OCA, any expenditure must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of parliamentary duties. This is a strict and long-established rule, approved by successive Speakers. You cannot therefore claim for expenditure that is personal or party-political. The allowance year is 1st April to 31st March.”
10. The April 2002 Green Book says in paragraph 5.1:
“The staffing allowance is available to meet the costs wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred on the provision of staff to help Members perform their Parliamentary duties … .”
11. This form of words was in the June 2003 Green Book as paragraph 6.1.1, and it also appears in subsequent editions during the period of Mr Henry Conway’s employment.
12. Following the Fifth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for 2002-03,6 paragraph 6.2.1 of the Green Book was revised in July 2004 to read as follows:
“Subject to the paragraphs which follow, all Members of Parliament may draw on the staffing allowance to pay their staff. 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.”
6 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fifth Report of Session 2002-03, HC 947
Mr Derek Conway MP 17
My Inquiries
13. Having considered carefully the complainant’s letter, I concluded that there was sufficient evidence in it to merit at least a preliminary inquiry of Mr Conway about his employment of Mr Henry Conway. I therefore wrote to Mr Conway on 11 February7 and informed the complainant that I had done so. I enclosed the complainant’s letter of 4 February and its attachments.8 Having summarised the relevant rules of the House, I invited Mr Conway’s comments on the complaint. I asked him to let me have a copy of the contract of employment he had provided for Mr Henry Conway and the dates on which he was employed; records of the salary Mr Henry Conway was paid, together with the bonuses and overtime payments he earned for each year of employment; a statement of the reasons for the level of pay he decided on, taking account of his son’s qualifications and experience at the time and the guidance of the then Department of Finance and Administration. I also asked Mr Conway to let me have a full description of the hours Mr Henry Conway had worked and the working arrangements both in term time and in his holiday periods; and a description of the work actually undertaken by Mr Henry Conway, together with as much evidence as Mr Conway could provide, both material and circumstantial, that his son had carried out these tasks.
14. Mr Conway replied with his letter of 11 March.9 He enclosed with it eleven annexes.10 They comprised a copy of Mr Henry Conway’s entry in the Register of Interests of Members’ Secretaries and Research Assistants dated 13 February 2002;11 a letter of August 2001 from the Courtauld Institute of Art setting out the arrangements for re-registration for second year students; a list of the second year courses at the Courtauld Institute for 2001-02 showing the options selected by Mr Henry Conway; an extract from a booklet for the third year undergraduate course preferences for 2002-03 for the Courtauld Institute; a press article from the Daily Mail of 21 February 2008 about the drop-out rate by students in universities;12 a letter of 25 February 2008 addressed to the Commissioner from Mr Conway’s constituency secretary about her contacts with Mr Henry Conway;13 a letter of 20 February 2008 addressed to the Commissioner from another Member’s secretary [Secretary A] recalling her contacts with Mr Henry Conway;14 a letter which I am not including in the evidence since the author declined to sign it because his employers did not wish him to be associated with this inquiry; a photograph of Mr Henry Conway with the Moroccan Ambassador; another article from the Daily Mail, this time of 3 March 2008 noting that Parliamentary officials said that the destruction of documents relating to Members’ expenses was routine; a copy of Mr Henry Conway’s contract of employment, signed by both Mr Conway and Mr Henry Conway on 1 July 2001, together with Mr
7 WE 4 8 WE 1, WE 2 and WE 3 9 WE 5 10 I have included in this evidence those which are needed for an understanding of Mr Conway’s response. 11 WE 6 12 WE 7 13 WE 8 14 WE 9
18 Mr Derek Conway MP
Henry Conway’s job description as research assistant signed by both him and Mr Conway on the same date.15
15. Mr Conway stated that his son’s appointment was in accordance with the rules of the House as they existed at that time. In 2001 his son was issued with a researcher’s pass to the Parliamentary Estate and he had also registered with the Registrar of Members’ Interests. Both of these actions declared his position in the public domain. Mr Conway noted that the appointment of family members was neither contrary to the rules of the House nor was it disreputable. The employment was exclusively to support him in his Parliamentary activities and his son’s assistance was neither personal nor party political. He was employed to meet a genuine need. Mr Conway’s requirement was for support in reviewing and summarising briefing material relating to his general and foreign affairs interests, and also those specifically relating to London. In addition to this research function, Mr Henry Conway provided assistance in sorting incoming mail, support in arranging meeting rooms and entertaining visitors, taking telephone messages, stuffing envelopes, photocopying, collating responses to constituents, maintaining the Raise Again file for his forthcoming engagements, maintaining the Awaiting Reply file for outstanding matters, checking local newspapers for articles and photographs relating to him, photography and downloading and editing photographs, scrutiny of and deleting e-mails. Mr Conway said that his son’s duties were, therefore, a balance of matters that required some thought and others that were clerically based.
16. There were no specific qualifications required for the position of a research assistant. However his son’s intellectual capacity for the basic research was clear as he was in his second year at the United Kingdom’s premier university college for his chosen subject. There had been approximately 3,000 applicants for 45 undergraduate places at the college. At school his son had been a library assistant undertaking research tasks and was chairman of an art committee which involved researching exhibitions and preparing text for catalogues.
17. Mr Conway said that his son was available to undertake the work since his course was based at the Courtauld Institute of Art at Somerset House, which was a short walk along the Embankment from the Parliamentary Estate. Being at Mr Conway’s Westminster flat, or Parliament or college meant he was always within walking distance. For his second year course (2001-02) Mr Henry Conway’s terms totalled 27 weeks and his lecture commitments were 6 hours a week. In his final year (2002-03) this reduced to two lectures, plus a requirement to give two oral and two essay presentations. For his Master’s year (2003-04) the lecture commitment was reduced further, but dissertation preparation was required. Mr Conway contended that the concept of being a “full-time” student and consequently excluded from a capacity to do part-time work was as wrong in application to his son as it would be to most humanities course students. In support of that view he cited the Tenth Report of the Public Accounts Committee,16 the newspaper article on university
15 WE 10 and WE 11 16 Public Accounts Committee, Tenth Report
Mr Derek Conway MP 19
drop-outs attached to his letter,17 and a statement in that article by the professor of government at Essex University that students were not being taught enough and that the number of lectures had halved.
18. Mr Conway said that Mr Henry Conway would do what was required of him either at his Westminster flat or on the Parliamentary estate, either in his Member of Parliament’s room, or at his secretary’s desk. He noted the statements appended to his letter, and other comments made by those who had seen his son or who had had contacts with him, although he said that they did not wish their identities to be made public. He referred also to the photograph taken of the Moroccan Ambassador with Mr Henry Conway which showed his son wearing his Parliamentary pass in the Inter-Parliamentary Union Room off Westminster Hall. Mr Henry Conway would assist Mr Conway with visiting groups, setting up the meeting room, taking photographs, providing refreshments and helping to receive and escort guests.
19. Mr Conway noted that the Director General of the Department of Resources had confirmed to him that the House of Commons Commission in 2002 had instructed that, with the exception of those relating to pensions, personal records should be kept for only the three years preceding the current year. He noted the newspaper report enclosed with his letter that quoted Parliamentary officials as saying that the destruction of such documents was “routine”. The House had required Members to clear all files and papers from the Parliamentary Estate when Dissolution took place for the 2005 general election, which post-dated Mr Henry Conway’s part-time employment, yet he was being asked to produce records from up to seven years ago. He did not have them as he would not have kept a record of what hours Mr Henry Conway or any other member of his staff had spent at each location. Nor did he have a record of the summaries Mr Henry Conway had prepared on the research he required or of any of the other work he had described, which, by its nature, would not require a record to be kept of what was done.
20. Mr Conway confirmed that Mr Henry Conway was employed from July 2001 to September 2004. His understanding was that his salary of £10,00018 a year was well within the pay scale of the research/Parliamentary assistant grade. He calculated Mr Henry Conway’s salary over the 39 months of his employment to have been £28,000, with a further £3,588 in 3 bonus payments and an £800 overtime payment: a total remuneration of £32,388.
21. Mr Conway noted that bonus payments were commonly made to Members’ staff and in Mr Henry Conway’s case the annual bonus payments were within the 15% annual maximum. There had been no annual salary up-rating. He did not have a record of the details of the overtime payment, but, as it was a one-off payment, that indicated it was specifically related to extra hours worked at the time.
17 WE 7 18 All sums have been rounded to the nearest £.
20 Mr Derek Conway MP
22. Mr Conway calculated that, on a part-time basis, over 39 months, the grade maximum would have been £47,699 and £7,155 in permitted bonus, which was a combined remuneration maximum of £54,853. On this basis, he calculated that Mr Henry Conway’s salary was 42% below the maximum figure; his bonus was 49% below that figure; and his combined remuneration was 41% below the permitted grade maximum. He considered the level of remuneration to be reasonable and well within the maximum permitted by the guidelines of the Department at the time.
23. Referring to the hours Mr Henry Conway worked, Mr Conway said that his son would do what was required of him to fulfil 18 hours at three locations: the flat, his MP’s room at the House or his secretary’s desk. The hours varied, but as his son’s lecture commitment was minimal, this was not a difficulty. Often Mr Conway’s Commons secretary would go into the Commons quite early and he himself would work from his flat during the morning. Mr Henry Conway would work alongside him for a couple of hours, or in mid- morning walk up to the Commons depending on what needed doing and where. Mr Henry Conway would frequently work late afternoon for an hour or so. Over the week there was no challenge in being available for and in filling the necessary hours on the various tasks he required.
24. Inevitably on some days there would be less to do than others. Some work was required on a Saturday or Sunday. Mr Conway said that he did not keep, and would not in any event have retained from up to 7 years ago, timesheets for Mr Henry Conway or anyone else. He very much doubted that any other Member had such records from so long ago or kept a schedule of the sort of routine activities undertaken by his son. Various people had observed his son about the Parliamentary Estate or had contact with him at the flat. Asking them to provide other than a generalised recollection or even a schedule of exactly when and what he was doing between four and seven years ago would be neither realistic nor reasonable. In conclusion, Mr Conway said:
“Henry had a job to do, was not over-paid to do it and fulfilled the tasks required to my satisfaction. No rules of the House were broken in employing him, others had contact with him, his appointment was published and publicly available.”
25. He deprecated strongly the “vitriol Henry has been subjected to in the national media”. He hoped that I would conclude that “the witch-hunt to which my family and I have been subjected has gone far enough and that the complaint is not upheld”.
26. Having considered Mr Conway’s letter, I wrote to him on 12 March asking for some further information.19 I asked him for a fuller explanation of the research aspects which his son had undertaken for him, in particular what sort of briefing his son had provided and for some idea of its frequency; for some idea of what proportion of his son’s time was spent on these research elements and what proportion was spent on other duties referred to in his letter; if he could let me know of any difference in the hours worked by his son between
19 WE 12
Mr Derek Conway MP 21
term time and holidays, and between when the House was sitting and in the recesses; if he could help me with what the bonuses were paid for and if he could give me some idea of the circumstances in which the overtime payment was made.
27. Mr Conway responded on 31 March.20 On research services, he doubted that his needs were different from those of most Members. While the House Library offered a form of research support, the response time was not immediate, the quantity of the information often much more than required and it was not necessarily in the format which suited him. The Library did not offer a précis service for incoming briefings. His son would prepare briefings in the form of edited extracts from a variety of sources on the subjects he designated. These related to his specific interests in foreign affairs and connected to the various positions he held as an officer in a number of all-party bi-lateral groups, the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and as Treasurer of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The format for country briefing would include general population, economic, political and commercial background. It would also include details of the diplomatic representation in London and in the capital of the country both for the UK and the country concerned.
28. Mr Conway noted there were literally hundreds of quasi-government bodies, businesses, groups and organisations covering London-wide issues. A large proportion were keen to brief him as a London borough MP. Numerous reports and briefings were submitted to him. Those thought likely to be of interest would be passed to Mr Henry Conway who would read through them and talk him through any salient points or produce a précis so that he would not have to read the entire document. His son’s previous research experience had been good training for him. The service was of value to his work and was conducted effectively and diligently.
29. It was very difficult at this distance to give a precise estimate of the time taken on this work. Mr Conway estimated that the preparation of foreign briefings and the analysis and précis of domestic reports comprised about half of Mr Henry Conway’s workload and would occur several times a week. He thought that it was not unreasonable to contend that the research and other duties he had previously set out occupied his son for at least three hours each day. It was not a Monday to Friday requirement, and his son would frequently help him at weekends too. The demand did, however, vary. In the latter part of July and August the need for foreign affairs research and briefing was less than in other months. At such time other demands increased, such as sorting the mail as he himself would be away from London more often. The demands of Mr Henry Conway’s university course did not give rise to variations in the time spent on this work. Recesses were also a factor in the variation, but Mr Conway believed this experience was not dissimilar to that experienced by most Members of Parliament. In quieter periods, Members’ staff were still retained.
30. In respect of bonus payments, Mr Conway noted that the House guidance at that time was simply that they should be made within the budgets available and not exceed 15% of
20 WE 13
22 Mr Derek Conway MP
gross annual salary. He noted too that the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ Fourth Report of Session 2007-08 observed that “all bonuses for staff authorised by Mr Conway in the previous three years were within the permitted level”.21 This covered Mr Henry Conway’s period of employment. Mr Conway considered the bonus awards to have been a combination of him having granted no annual salary up-rating and because he was very pleased with the work Mr Henry Conway had carried out for him and his willingness to assist him on days and at times out of the usual working week.
31. The overtime payment was a one-off. Mr Conway said that there were two specific requirements which were additional to his son’s usual duties. He had acquired over the years 30 large storage cartons of Official Reports and Statutes, some of which had been water-damaged, and he needed the damaged books sorted out. For the remainder he had asked his son to ascertain where his contributions in the House were recorded so that they could be safely stored. In addition he had about 4 filing cabinets of past constituency cases and papers which he considered unnecessary to retain and several boxes of similar papers from his predecessor. His son was asked to sort through these, shred unwanted reports and go through with him those his son thought should be retained. At this distance in time, he could not recall exactly how many hours were involved, but it was a useful task.
32. In conclusion, Mr Conway noted that this level of scrutiny was “quite uncommon for my colleagues”. He very much doubted if more than a handful of Members could account for the activities of their staff on an hourly basis going back over 7 years ago.
33. At the same time as conducting this correspondence with Mr Conway, I had written to the Acting Director of Operations at the Department of Resources on 12 March.22 I invited his comments on the complaint and on Mr Conway’s response of 11 March. I invited any comments he wished to make about the arrangements which Mr Conway made at the time for the employment of his research assistant. And I asked for some factual information about the range of posts and associated salary scales available to Members wishing to employ staff in 2001; the range of salary which the Department suggested for research assistants in each of the years from 2001 to 2004, including any guidance about how a Member decided on where in the range the salary should be placed; and information about the actual salary paid to Mr Henry Conway in each of the 3 years in question, including the full-time equivalent for each of the years, together with information about the bonuses actually paid to Mr Henry Conway and the overtime payments he had received.
34. The Director of Operations replied with his letter of 9 April.23 He annexed to it a copy of Mr Henry Conway’s contract of July 2001 together with his job description,24 a copy of the relevant extract from the Green Book for February 200125 and a schedule of payments
21 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 280, paragraph 28.
22 WE 14 23 WE 15 24 WE 10 and WE 11 25 See paragraph 9 above.
Mr Derek Conway MP 23
to Mr Henry Conway during his employment in the House.26 He noted that Mr Henry Conway’s employment dated from 1 July 2001, which was before the introduction of the requirements now placed upon Members in respect of the employment of staff and before the guidance on pay rates was issued. The subsequent instruction to place Mr Henry Conway on the payroll was signed by Mr Conway on 27 November 2001. The first payment was therefore made in December 2001 and included an arrears payment covering the period 1 July to 30 November 2001.
35. The Director of Operations noted that on the date that Mr Conway and his son had signed the contract of employment, 1 July 2001, the rules and guidance in the Green Book were substantially different from now and were principally concerned with payment transactions. The principal rule appeared to be the necessity for a contract of employment to be lodged with the then Fees Office. The current framework of rules and guidance involving standard contracts, job descriptions and associated pay ranges was absent at the time of Mr Henry Conway’s appointment. It was always likely that new arrangements would come out of the 2001 report of the Senior Salaries Review Body on Parliamentary pay and allowances, following a debate on 5 July 2001, but the precise nature of these arrangements could not be readily predicted, nor the timing.
36. The Director of Operations noted that Mr Henry Conway’s employment contract largely followed the model recommended by the Department. The form of contract then was not mandatory as it was now. His salary on appointment was £8,000 a year, equivalent to a full-time rate of £16,667 a year. The London pay range for Mr Henry Conway’s post as research assistant, which he said was first issued in autumn 2001,27 was £15,000-£26,500 a year.
37. The Director of Operations noted from the schedule of payments to Mr Henry Conway which he enclosed, the £2,000 a year pay increase authorised in March 2003 and backdated to April 2002 and the bonus and overtime payments authorised in March 2004.
38. The Director of Operations said that in his view all payments to Mr Henry Conway were made within the rules set out in the Green Book, including later editions based on the requirements of the new staffing allowance. Mr Henry Conway’s salary had been raised to a rate equivalent to full-time pay of £20,833 a year (in March 2003, backdated to April 2002) and it was not increased again during the rest of his employment. He noted that for the bonus and overtime payments authorised in March 2004, Mr Conway had requested £2,000 net to be paid to his son. This was subsequently clarified by Mr Conway to be £1,500 bonus and £829 overtime (both gross payment figures). In all such cases the Department acted on the Member’s instruction, subject only to the 15% bonus cap being properly applied.
26 WE 16 27 The letter from the Head of the Fees Office was issued on 31 July 2001.
24 Mr Derek Conway MP
39. Having considered the Director of Operations’ letter, I noted that the salary and bonus instructions following the initial pay request of November 2001 had been based on letters sent to the Department by Mr Conway on 11 February 2002; 9 March 2003; 4 March 2004; 15 March 2004 and 4 September 2004. I asked to see copies of those letters.
40. The Director of Operations sent me copies of each of Mr Conway’s letters with his letter to me of 15 April.28 The letter of 11 February 2002 requested a bonus of £1,200 representing 15% of annual salary. The letter of 9 March 2003 requested an increase in basic salary to £10,000 backdated to 1 April 2002; and the bonus for 2002-03 to be at a maximum of 15%, unless the budget was not adequate to cover this. This letter was annotated and initialled by a member of the then Fees Office noting that there were insufficient funds for a 15% bonus and that it should be reduced accordingly—£1,188 gross was authorised for payment. Mr Conway’s letter of 4 March 2004 asked that Mr Henry Conway should be paid £2,000 net in addition to his monthly salary; and the letter of 15 March 2004 confirmed that this sum was to represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties. The then Department of Finance and Administration had annotated in manuscript that they had confirmed with Mr Conway that overtime pay should be £829.13. Mr Conway’s letter of 4 September 2004 requested termination of payment of salary from 1 October 2004.
41. On 28 April, Mr Conway e-mailed me to let me have a copy of an article about his son in the Mail on Sunday “You” Magazine on 27 April. The article quoted Mr Henry Conway as saying that the press had misrepresented the party lifestyle he had led as a student: that was not the case. He was quoted as describing himself as a diligent student who worked hard to get his BA and MA.
42. Having reviewed all the information I had received, I decided I needed to have a meeting with Mr Henry Conway to discuss his work as Mr Conway’s research assistant.
43. Mr Henry Conway came to see me on 21 May. He was accompanied by the Rt Hon Greg Knight, the Member for East Yorkshire. An official from my office was present and subsequently prepared and agreed with Mr Henry Conway the factual accuracy of the note of our meeting.29 In the context of commenting on the factual accuracy of this note of the meeting, Mr Henry Conway wrote to me on 4 June 2008. I reflected some of the comments he made in that letter in the text of the note of the meeting since they were points he had made at the time. His other comments were comments additional to or modifying the points he made at the meeting. I have incorporated these in footnotes to the note of the meeting.
44. Henry Conway explained that he had been asked to be his father’s research assistant because his father needed extra assistance, particularly as he was new to a London seat. Henry Conway’s background qualified him to do this job. His father needed someone he
28 WE 17-23 29 WE 24
Mr Derek Conway MP 25
could trust implicitly. He had a place on a very selective course at the Courtauld Institute. He had run a school gallery which was open to the public and so was used to preparing catalogues and to doing research. He had worked for the library at school and had done librarian duties. He was more than qualified for the lowest grade of Parliamentary research assistant.
45. Turning to the work, there was not an average day. He had no set routine. Most of his lectures were in the afternoon, and then he would start at about 10am either at his father’s flat in Westminster (where Henry was living at the time) or in the House of Commons. Sometimes he would pick up the post, sometimes Mr Conway’s Commons secretary would do so. He would go through the papers in his father’s office or in the secretary’s office. There was no set routine. On a typical day he would work from about 10am until 1 or 2pm. Often he would have lunch at the House. But he also worked weekends. Sometimes he would go back to work after he finished at the Courtauld Institute, although as a general rule he did not work in the evening. He spent perhaps a couple of hours at the weekends dealing with the mail and producing précis of documents received. Mostly he worked in his father’s flat in Westminster or in his father’s office in the House of Commons.
46. Henry Conway said that the work was less intense in the recess, but the mailbag did not diminish. His work for his father did not change between term-time and out of term. In the Parliamentary recess he would be based more in his father’s flat than in the House. He was working 18 hours a week, but not more.
47. Turning to links with his university life, he said he did not have a normal university social life and, in his subsequent note of clarification, noted that he did not consider that there was such a thing as a normal university life for London-based undergraduates as they were not campus centred. At interview, he said that he did not go round saying to his friends that he worked for his father. Discussions with his friends were not really about those kind of things. He did not talk about his work in Parliament. In his subsequent note, he said that it was not his practice to talk about what his father did or what his views were, but he did not conceal that he worked for him either. Most of his inner circle of friends were aware that he was a part-time Parliamentary assistant and had a pass to the Parliamentary estate.
48. Mr Henry Conway told me that he was able to manage the time very easily. He had no fixed routine. It was 5-10 minutes walk to the Courtauld and 10 minutes to his father’s flat. He generally undertook his academic work at night, mainly working in his father’s flat, but also in the Senate House and the Courtauld library. While it would have been abnormal not to have had a few parties, he did not ignore academic work, or the work for his father. The press articles made him out to be a complete social animal—that was certainly not true. He did not have an excessive social life.
49. Turning to the work he undertook, Mr Henry Conway said that he would collect the post and send the constituency post to the constituency secretary. He would take calls and forward e-mails to her. He would sort through his father’s in-box and delete irrelevant and junk mail. He would print attachments. He would edit photos and use these for press
26 Mr Derek Conway MP
releases. In addition, he would help at meetings. Intellectual ability was needed to sort the postbag. The ‘awaiting reply’ and ‘raise again’ files were maintained at his father’s flat. He would initiate the process for any chase up letters coming from the ‘awaiting reply’ file. He would bring forward future engagements from the ‘raise again’ file.
50. Turning to the research work, he said that quite a lot of the time he undertook it at his father’s flat, and the rest of the time in his father’s office. He did no Parliamentary work at the Courtauld. Sometimes his father commissioned the work, and sometimes he suggested it. He would prepare précis on an A4 sheet with a list of points. He also took cuttings from local newspapers. He would produce a factual summary drawing attention to issues with post-it notes or in oral briefings with his father. The reports his father received covered London issues and quite a lot of reports on animal welfare issues. Half of the nine hours a week which he spent on this work would be taken up with reading reports which he would then discard. For foreign affairs papers, he produced an A4 sheet covering economic issues, social issues, political issues and protocol. It was not always on one sheet, but there was no great detail. He remembered papers on Anglo-Moroccan issues and on the Arab nations. He remembered preparing a paper on Antigua. He prepared these summaries drawing (from the internet) on newspaper websites, Embassy sites, and official and unofficial tourism sites. He did not use the House of Commons Library. He used his father’s Parliamentary IT account for this work. Sometimes his father would ask questions about the briefing. They were not detailed briefs: they provided an overview only. His father would use these as a launching pad to explore other areas.
51. Turning to his pay, Mr Henry Conway said that his father had not told him why his salary had been increased. He did not recall any discussion about his bonuses, although he assumed that his father was pleased with his work. Turning to the overtime payment, he said that he could not remember what it was for until he had spoken to his father. It was for sorting through water-damaged Hansards in the cellar of his father’s London flat to see what could be saved, and filing old constituency cases from the previous Member of Parliament. In his subsequent note he pointed out the scale of that task. His father had been collecting Hansard reports from 1983 and they had been stored since 1997, when some had become damaged. He sorted out those that could be salvaged and identified those which contained a record of his father’s contributions. It took place over several weekends. In his oral evidence to me, he noted that it was a laborious and messy task. He was an efficient worker and there was no undue pressure in doing this and his academic work.
52. In conclusion, Mr Henry Conway noted that when he had left his father’s employment, he went to work for a major PR company and was paid considerably more than he had received as a research assistant.
53. Following that meeting, I received a letter of 29 May from a friend of Mr Henry Conway.30 He had noted that I had asked why Mr Henry Conway did not talk about his
30 WE 25
Mr Derek Conway MP 27
work for his father to others. He believed this implied a level of secrecy which was not true. On a number of occasions Mr Henry Conway had invited him into Parliament and he recalled visiting Mr Conway’s office and going with Mr Henry Conway to the Lords bar. During these visits Mr Henry Conway was wearing a Parliamentary photopass and clearly knew his way around the building. That he worked for Mr Conway was obvious to him. In subsequent exchanges with Mr Henry Conway’s friend, I confirmed that he recalled Mr Henry Conway telling him, probably sometime in 2001, that he did work at times for his father. His friend also visited the Houses of Parliament to see Mr Henry Conway once or twice, although he could not remember the dates as it was a long time ago.
54. I received a similar letter from another friend of Mr Henry Conway, but the letter had no address and accordingly I informed Mr Henry Conway that I could not include it as evidence to this inquiry.
55. I decided that it would be helpful if possible to have fuller information about when Mr Henry Conway received his House of Commons pass and when the contract signed on 1 July 2001 was received in the Department of Finance and Administration, since they did not seem to have had a request for salary payment until November that year. Accordingly, I wrote to the Pass Office Manager and the Director of Operations, both on 3 June 2008.31 The Pass Office Manager responded on 4 June confirming that Mr Henry Conway had applied for a Parliamentary pass on 25 June 2001 and that it was issued on 5 October 2001.32
56. The Director of Operations responded on 6 June.33 He was unable to confirm the precise date when the contract of employment was received by the Department. It was not date-stamped on receipt. The letters “PAS” (Personnel Advice Service) had been written on it, which indicated that it had been seen by this team at some point. The Personnel Advice Service was not set up until October 2001. He could not give a conclusive response about the date of receipt, but he could not rule out the possibility that the contract and salary form were received by the Department at the same time. The Director of Operations confirmed that the authority for payment of salary to Mr Henry Conway was signed and dated by his father as 27 November 2001.
57. The Director of Operations also stated that the bonus of £1,200 awarded in February 2002 was in his view in keeping with the rules at that time. The Department’s advice was that bonuses should be no more than 15% of annual salary. It was not until June 2005 that the guidance was altered to restrict bonuses paid during the year to 15% of the employee’s gross annual salary or payments received in the year.
58. I sent my exchange of correspondence with the Pass Office and the Director of Operations to Mr Conway on 10 June.34 Mr Conway responded on 14 June.35 Mr Conway
31 WE 26 and WE 27 32 WE 28 33 WE 29 34 WE 30
28 Mr Derek Conway MP
said that he did not have a base on the Parliamentary estate until the late autumn of 2001 because, as a Member returning after a period out of the House, he had to wait for the party accommodation whip to agree an appropriate allocation. Computer equipment was not issued until later in 2001, so he had to use his own personal facilities for Parliamentary duties.
59. Mr Conway attached a letter from another Member’s Parliamentary research assistant who had worked in the same shared secretaries’ room as his Commons secretary and who had seen Mr Henry Conway working for him.36
60. In summary Mr Conway said that in respect of the four points raised by the complainant, he hoped he had demonstrated to my satisfaction that the work of his researcher/Parliamentary assistant was necessary and solely related to his Parliamentary duties; that his son had the intellectual capacity and experience to do the job; that I had before me testimonials from those who recalled seeing his son on the Parliamentary Estate and specifically in the secretarial office, together with a photograph of his son assisting at a meeting off Westminster Hall; and that his son had been paid well within the lowest grade and that his remuneration never exceeded what was permitted. He hoped, therefore, that I had reached the point at which I would be able to reject the complaint.
61. I wrote to Mr Conway on 17 June to say that my inquiries were continuing and that I might then need some further help from him. I also sent him copies of letters of 9 and 15 April from the Department of Resources.37 Mr Conway responded to my letter on 20 June.38 He noted that the Director of Operations had stated in categorical terms that all payments Mr Conway had authorised for his son were within the rules set out in the Green Book. He noted also that he believed that the Committee had already found the bonus payments to Mr Henry Conway to have been within the rules. Mr Conway’s letter to the Department of 15 March 2004 about the overtime payment made it clear that the sum was to represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties. Mr Conway repeated his submission that these letters, combined with the other evidence and statements submitted to me, would enable me to reject the complaint and terminate the inquiry.
62. I wrote to Mr Conway on 24 June to say that were some issues which I still needed to inquire into and that I might then need some further help from him. I did not, therefore, have all the information I considered I needed in order to resolve the complaint.
63. Mr Conway’s letter of 14 June had referred to a number of those who recalled seeing his son in the shared secretaries’ room. While I had written statements from some of those staff, I believed it would be helpful for me to take further evidence from them.
64. I met on 10 July one of the secretaries [Secretary A] who worked in this shared secretaries’ room.39 Mr Conway had forwarded to me with his initial letter of 11 March a
35 WE 31 36 WE 32 37 WE 15 and WE 17 38 WE 33 39 WE 34
Mr Derek Conway MP 29
letter from her to me of 20 February.40 In that letter, the secretary said that she recalled that Mr Henry Conway used to sit at Mr Conway’s secretary’s desk to perform functions such as opening and sorting the mail and clerical duties of some sort, although she did not scrutinize his actual work. Mr Henry Conway would also join her from time to time in the cafeteria for lunch. It was not a daily routine but it did occur often.
65. The secretary told me at our meeting on 10 July that there were four desks in the shared secretaries’ room. One desk was used by a job-share. The room had two doors. She would have seen everyone who came in when she was in that room. She had met Mr Henry Conway, probably at a social event, well before he came to work for his father. No-one said anything about his role. Until she read the Committee’s Report on Mr Conway’s employment of Mr Freddie Conway, she did not know that Mr Henry Conway had been getting a salary.41 She thought “it was just Henry, helping”. She did not know whether he worked 18 hours a week. “I was surprised that he was earning a salary for what he was doing, and about the bonuses. But maybe he did do 18 hours per week”. At the time she knew he was a student at the Courtauld Institute. She did not think there was a regular pattern to when she saw him in the secretaries’ room. It was possible that there were weeks when he did not come in at all, but others when he came in several times. She did not remember him working a whole morning or afternoon there, but it was too far back to remember. She recalled him collecting post. He might have opened or given it to Mr Conway’s Commons secretary, or both. She saw him at the computer. She did not discuss her work with him and did not expect him to discuss his. He would speak about his course at the Courtauld. She had the impression he had quite a busy life. He was quite passionate about his work for the Courtauld, but she understood that he did not have to be there all day or every day. Sometimes he had only one lecture or tutorial.
66. The secretary said that she had lunch with Mr Henry Conway, maybe two or three times a month. She would accompany him and Mr Conway’s secretary. They talked about “fun things”. At the end of lunch, Mr Henry Conway might have gone to the Courtauld or home, or to his father’s office or to the shared secretaries’ room. There was no pattern. She saw Mr Henry Conway socially after she left the secretaries’ room in September 2003, but their paths would not have crossed in terms of their work. But she had seen him frequently when she was working in the secretaries’ room.
67. I spoke also to the research assistant whose letter to me of 10 June Mr Conway had sent me with his letter of 14 June.42 In her letter, she said that she had worked in the shared secretaries’ room from January 2001 to September 2003. During that time she had met Mr Henry Conway “on multiple occasions”. While she could not provide dates, she could confirm that Mr Henry Conway worked periodically from Mr Conway’s secretary’s computer undertaking research activities and, she believed, assisting in constituency correspondence. She spoke to Mr Henry Conway on these occasions and discussed briefly
40 See paragraph 14 and WE 9 41 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 280. 42 See paragraph 59 and WE 34
30 Mr Derek Conway MP
the work they were each engaged in: “It is through these discussions and his presence in our office, that I can confirm, without doubt, that Mr Henry Conway was gainfully employed by Mr Derek Conway and that the work he was performing directly supported Mr Derek Conway’s Parliamentary duties.”
68. I had a telephone interview with this research assistant on 17 July.43 The research assistant told me that she had worked in the relevant secretaries’ room on a shared basis from January to September 2001 and then with her own desk from September 2001 to the summer or autumn of 2002. The room was open plan with four desks. They all worked at very close quarters and talked constantly. She would see everyone who came into the room. She would have been introduced to Mr Henry Conway by Mr Conway’s Commons secretary. Mr Conway’s secretary would have said that Mr Henry Conway would be coming in and out and doing work. Mr Henry Conway had told her that he was doing a research paper for his father. They might ask each other “How are you doing with your research?” She thought he also did some constituency correspondence, because that was mentioned when they talked about what they did. She knew he was being paid and that he was studying Art History, she thought in London. She did not think it odd that he was combining Parliamentary work with undergraduate study. She had worked 40 hours a week in a pub while she had done her Master’s degree.
69. The research assistant said that she saw Mr Henry Conway in the secretaries’ room between six and ten times between June/July 2001 and June 2002. She could not remember what time of day he was in the office, but her day started at 10am and it was never near the start of her day. Mr Henry Conway was never in the office before she was. She did not think he worked all day. He might also have worked in Mr Conway’s office or in the Library of the House. If Mr Henry Conway was coming in to pick up work, he would be on Mr Conway’s secretary’s computer and sitting there if she was not there. The six to ten times she saw him would include some periods in the Parliamentary recess. When he was not in the secretaries’ room, Mr Conway’s secretary would sometimes say that he was in Mr Derek Conway’s office. Mr Henry Conway was “very cheery”. There were never signs of strain. She thought she had seen him once or twice outside the shared secretaries’ room around Parliament. She saw him at his parents’ house once.
70. The research assistant said the she had read some of the articles on the BBC website which were very derogatory about Mr Henry Conway and Mr Conway’s secretary. She did not write when she initially meant to. Mr Conway’s secretary asked if she would offer a letter and she was happy to give moral support. She wrote the letter herself. She did not like “seeing the Conways torn to shreds in the media”. If she could help by noting what she saw both Mr Conway’s secretary and Mr Henry Conway do, then she felt it was her responsibility to do so.
71. The evidence from the research assistant had identified another of the secretaries who was in the room at this time. I wrote to her on 31 July asking for her recollection of what
43 WE 35
Mr Derek Conway MP 31
she had seen of Mr Henry Conway from July 2001 to October 2004.44 Secretary B responded with her letter of 11 August.45 She said that she had worked for “not more than a few months” in the relevant secretaries’ room immediately after the 2001 general election. She saw Mr Henry Conway during that period, but could not remember the first time she saw him there. He used to open the post and generally help Mr Conway’s secretary when he was in the office. She did not recall there was any regular pattern of attendance, nor did she know whether he undertook any work outside the office. Mr Henry Conway did not discuss his work with her, nor did she know that he was a paid member of staff, although she did know that he was studying at the Courtauld Institute. It was hard to recall at this distance in time, but she got the impression that Mr Henry Conway was “a bright chap who could have had the ability to undertake pieces of research as well as his university commitments”.
72. In his evidence to me, Mr Henry Conway had said that he had most contact with the secretary in Mr Conway’s constituency. Mr Conway had sent me with his initial letter of 11 March a letter to me of 25 February from his constituency secretary.46 She noted in that letter that Mr Conway’s working pattern varied enormously, so she would telephone his Commons office or the secretary’s office and then his Westminster apartment. On “numerous occasions I would speak to Henry” who would take the calls and messages. She knew that Mr Henry Conway had a role in sorting out incoming mail because, when Mr Conway and his wife were in the constituency away from London, Mr Henry Conway would sift out constituency based letters and send them to her for attention. She did not keep a record of her contacts with Mr Henry Conway, but she could state that she had “frequent contact with Henry between 2002 and 2004”.
73. I wrote to the constituency secretary on 29 July asking for some further information or recollection to help on the frequency with which Mr Henry Conway would send her constituency based letters, and on how frequent or numerous were the occasions when she had telephone contact with him.47
74. The constituency secretary replied on 6 August.48 She said that she dealt with constituents’ general correspondence and surgeries. Other constituency matters such as visits and tours, tickets for question time and more general contact were handled by Mr Conway’s secretary in the House. Mr Conway’s incoming mail was always collected and sorted in Westminster and letters from constituents which were to be dealt with by her, were forwarded to her at the constituency office. She did not witness the sorting of mail at Westminster, but she came to recognise Mr Henry Conway’s handwriting. She could not recall the frequency of seeing his handwriting on envelopes addressed to her, but she particularly recalled seeing it on the weekend bundle which she would receive on the
44 WE 36 45 WE 37 46 WE 8 47 WE 38 48 WE 39
32 Mr Derek Conway MP
following Monday or Tuesday. When Mr and Mrs Conway were away from Westminster, she knew Mr Henry Conway was sorting the mail and dispatching her portion of it because again she would recognise his handwriting and they would often speak on the telephone. This occurred certainly with the weekend mailbag, recess periods and when Mr and Mrs Conway were away from Westminster, but also at other times. The volume of the post was difficult to estimate, but her impression was that she had about a third of the total.
75. When Mr and Mrs Conway were away, Mr Henry Conway would pass messages to his father and take a note of what he wanted as a response. This was then given to her to incorporate into the reply. She had telephone contact with Mr Henry Conway several times during the week. If Mr Conway was working from the flat, it was nearly always Mr Henry Conway who answered as his secretary preferred to be in her Commons office. As they (in the constituency) were near to London, they would get a lot of visiting school parties and pensioner groups and when Mr Conway’s secretary was escorting them, Mr Henry Conway would answer her telephone. At the flat, most of the time it was Mr Henry Conway who would answer the telephone. If Mr Conway was in his Commons office, again Mr Henry Conway would sometimes answer as he worked from Mr Conway’s computer while Mr Conway worked from the meeting table.
76. His constituency secretary understood Mr Conway was on a waiting list for a desk, so they moved around to suit whatever they were doing at the time. Often during the day and several times a week, she would call to give Mr Conway a message from a constituent and Mr Henry Conway would take the details for his father to deal with in due course. She would also telephone for clarification of Mr Conway’s handwritten drafts and, when Mr Henry Conway answered, they would try to interpret what Mr Conway was getting at.
77. While it was impossible to be precise at several years’ distance, she spoke frequently with Mr Henry Conway at various locations and they had a good working relationship. Mr Henry Conway was quick, efficient and “often chased up his father if a response to a message from me was dragging on”. Mr Conway did not operate on a Monday to Friday 9am-5pm basis. She found Mr Henry Conway polite and approachable and he was always helpful to her in dealing with Mr Conway’s administration.
78. The constituency secretary added that her job would end when Mr Conway stepped down from Parliament. The points she had given me were not, therefore, from an employee seeking “to flatter her employer in order to hold on to a job”—it would not exist when Mr Conway finished.
79. I was interested to see a report on the results of the NatWest Student Living Index published on the internet on 7 August 2008.49 It noted that “the number of students in part- time employment during the academic terms has risen sharply following the past two years of falling numbers of student workers.” For the current year (2008) 42% of the undergraduates surveyed were in part-time term employment. On average, those with a part-time job
49 WE 40
Mr Derek Conway MP 33
worked 14 hours a week, although a quarter of students worked more than 20 hours each week. The highest average weekly income from term-time jobs was reported to be in Brighton at £120.
80. Having reviewed all the evidence, I concluded that I needed to discuss it with Mr Derek Conway. Accordingly I wrote to him on 21 August. With that letter I sent him the evidence I had received from his son, from his son’s friend, and from the secretaries and research assistant from whom I had received oral and written evidence. I wrote again to Mr Conway on 12 September with a table setting out his son’s pay compared to the recommended Parliamentary rates introduced from the autumn of 2001.50
81. I met Mr Conway on 16 September.51 An official from my office was the note-taker. Mr Conway said that there was provision for Members to employ research assistants. Nor was there anything wrong in a Member employing his or her relative. Over 200 Members employed relatives in the House. Since he had no office facilities when he returned to the House in 2001, he needed someone working from his flat. This was not a 9-5 appointment and it did not seem to him appropriate to advertise the job to a “complete stranger”. He was not sure there were other options for the appointment, given the need to work from his home or his office.
82. Turning to his son’s qualities, he noted that his son was bright. He had declined a choral scholarship at Cambridge, and the fact that 3,000 applicants had applied for the 45 places at the Courtauld showed how selective it was. His son had been in his second year at university, and so therefore he had an idea of his work pattern. It could be seen from his commitments that his son would have no difficulty in doing what Mr Conway wanted him to do. He was very well organised. His son knew what Mr Conway wanted and how he wanted it, unlike the Library which produced a huge volume of information. His son was capable of working at a far higher level than was required of him by his father. He had a well developed command of the English language.
83. Mr Conway said that the cost of his son’s university education was not a deciding factor in his son’s employment as his research assistant. At the time, Mr Conway was still doing another job from which he earned considerably more than his MP’s salary. So he could afford it.
84. Mr Conway said that he had used a standard job description provided from the Fees Office. Working through this job description,52 he said that he did not ask his son to deal with constituents as described in the job description. But he was asked to sift through the post and sort it into what could be dealt with in Westminster and what needed to go to the constituency office. From time to time, he also liaised with his constituency secretary.
50 WE 41 51 WE 42 52 WE 11
34 Mr Derek Conway MP
85. Mr Conway said his son would keep the “raise again” file for all forthcoming activities. He would file material received from the constituency secretary in the “awaiting reply” file, which was his responsibility. The reference in the job description to “safeguarding of completed projects” was “Fees Office speak”. He did not see the point of keeping the summaries his son pulled together. In any event, the House of Commons Commission had said that records should not be kept for more than four years. Mr Conway noted the reference in the job description to liaising with MEPs and the GLA. He did not ask his son to do this. But he did speak to other members of his staff and to others coming to meetings.
86. Turning to the clerical work undertaken by his son, Mr Conway said that post coming into Westminster needed to be sorted there. It was not a demanding task, but it was arduous, opening all the envelopes and “getting rid of waste”. His Commons secretary would often in the early morning be dealing with visitors from the constituency. If his son had not been dealing with the post, it would have piled up, which did not suit his style of working. He preferred to get the post out of the way early. For example, his son would collect the post on Saturday, which did not happen for many Members.
87. Mr Conway said that neither he nor his son had mentioned his son passing messages from his constituency secretary and deciphering his handwriting, as reported by his constituency secretary, because he did not think it was terribly relevant. The constituency secretary would pass messages to his son who would take them and pass them on at a quiet moment later in the day if they did not need to be dealt with urgently. He did not know why in his written evidence he had not mentioned either this or deciphering his handwriting. He thought that about one-third of the mail was constituency letters, although this depended on what was going on. He thought the volume of his correspondence was about the same as for most other Members.
88. His son also did photocopying. He would take two copies of constituents’ letters and forward these to the constituency secretary. One of these copies would then be forwarded to the Minister. These copies were made on the Parliamentary copiers near Mr Conway’s office.
89. Turning to his son’s work on research, Mr Conway noted that when he returned to the House in 2001 he had no connection with London. He found that there was far more material he received than for a Midlands seat. His son would go through the documents received and make a judgement on whether they would interest him. If Mr Conway was interested, his son would prepare a summary.
90. On foreign affairs, Mr Conway said that he was involved with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. If there was a visit or an issue on a particular country, his son would research it for him. He had never known the CPA or the IPU do that themselves: they did not have the resources to do so.
91. When he went through the post, his son would dispose of some publications straight away. He would put aside constituency material to give to the constituency secretary. His son would then go through with him the third pile of publications. “Often I would be at the
Mr Derek Conway MP 35
desk and he would be at the other end of the table. There was no formal structure to this: it was generated by what came in.”
92. Mr Conway said that when his Commons secretary was opening the post, she would keep the constituency mail and mail relating to such things as schools. The rest she would leave in a pile in his room for his son. The summaries of the relevant factual issues was what he meant when he had told my predecessor that his son helped him to understand London issues.53
93. Mr Conway said that he did not recall any particular research briefings. The briefings were fairly functional documents: “I don’t think any of it was groundbreaking.” He did not feel “obliged to read everything he produced”. He would sometimes feel guilty if he threw away something his son had produced.
94. Mr Conway said that the areas covered by the briefings were foreign affairs, London, animal welfare and also defence. For example, his son produced the material for a speech he gave at a conference on dog wardens. To give another example, he had a meeting chaired by the Moroccan Ambassador, and he expected his son to give him a briefing. His son did not give him policy papers, and that was not expected. As far as he could recall, the papers were factual. He preferred one page not twenty pages. The value of a single sheet of briefing was that it meant he did not have to read through the volumes of correspondence he received each day. They were not expected to be sophisticated reports. They were pulling together other material. If he was invited to meet a visitor, his son would put together a brief. He would produce several such briefs a week. He could not say what proportion of his son’s time was spent on précising reports and producing briefings since, like other Members, he did not keep timesheets.
95. Turning to where his son undertook his work, he said there was not a regular pattern of attendance by his son. He was not arguing that. His son did not spend a lot of time in the shared secretarial office. His visits were “in and out to open post”. He would open the post and deal with e-mail in the shared secretarial office or in Mr Conway’s office. If Mr Conway had someone in his office, his son would find somewhere else to do this work. He more often did the research work at Mr Conway’s flat. His son would use the PC there or in his office in the House. The pattern of where his son worked depended very largely on what Mr Conway was doing, but his son would be in Mr Conway’s office in the House more than he was in the shared secretarial office, and he would be in Mr Conway’s flat more than he was in Mr Conway’s office in the House. While he recognised that his son did not get a pass for the Parliamentary estate until October 2001, security was not so strict then and anyone coming in with Mr Conway would be able to enter the estate with him. Mr Conway confirmed that he had been on a waiting list for a second desk. He had a lot of exchanges with an official in the Serjeant’s office about this. It was to be a workstation for his son.
53 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 280, paragraph 4 of WE 13.
36 Mr Derek Conway MP
96. Turning to his son’s terms and conditions, he said he could not say when he sent the Department of Finance and Administration his son’s employment contract which was signed on 1 July 2001. The contract of employment was a legal necessity. The job description was not absolutely accurate about what his son was doing but since his son was not likely to appear before an employment tribunal he did not see this as important. He noted that he had not submitted the form requesting pay for his son until 27 November 2001. This was because it was not his first priority: “It wasn’t an aspect I was remotely interested in”. The contract was dated 1 July 2001, the date it was legally required to be from. It was possible that he had written to the Department about pay before he filled in the relevant form on 27 November 2001. In any event, one of the secretaries who was only in the shared office for a few months, had said that Henry was around in that period.54 It was not possible to say that Henry was “all but invisible”.
97. Turning to the overtime payment claimed in March 2004, Mr Conway said that he must have had a conversation with the person in the Fees Office about the calculation for the overtime figure and what was properly bonus and what was overtime. He did not have a detailed idea of the overtime hours worked. His son had done the work because it needed doing. It was messy and time-consuming. He would not have said to his son “I want you to do this and you’ll get an overtime payment”. It was not a huge thing at the time. He believed his son did not remember being paid overtime for this work. While he could see this could be interpreted differently, there was a danger of reading more into it than was “truthful at the time”.
98. Mr Conway noted that two of the secretaries did not know that his son was being paid. This was because it was none of their business. 200 Members employed family members and they did not go round talking about it and how much they were paid. He could not think of any other business where a family member would not be paid if they were working for you. He did not see why the secretaries should know that his son was employed by him. Turning to his son’s initial salary of £8,000 for 18 hours a week, he did not remember how he had established it. It seemed reasonable when compared with what “people were getting about the place”. It was not out of kilter. It was not against any rules of the House at the time. His son was paid at less than the mid-point of his salary range. Mr Conway said that he could have argued that his son was a senior research assistant, but in fact he was on a lower scale. His son “was not excessively paid for what he was doing”. He did not think that 18 hours was an inappropriate calculation. He could have rounded it up to 19 hours since in some weeks his son worked longer. Nevertheless, he accepted what his son had told me that he worked 18 hours a week but not more. His son did the work he wanted him to do, quickly and efficiently. In any case, he did not believe every employee of the House was working 18 hours every week.
99. When asked about his son’s backdated increase in salary from April 2002, Mr Conway said that he did not undertake an annual review. With his other business interests he would
54 WE 37
Mr Derek Conway MP 37
do an annual staff assessment and the sum would depend on that and on the budget. Mr Conway said that he believed his son’s overall remuneration was £10,000 which grossed up to about £20,000 if he was full time. It was well within the scales the Commission published for Members. It was well below the mid-point of the range. While he noted that it was close to the mid-point in 2002-03, he felt this was reasonable given his son’s qualifications. Over the period of his employment, he emphasised that his son had received £28,000 in salary.
100. Mr Conway noted that the House of Commons guidance did not list any qualifications that were required. He did not believe the guidance said that research assistants should be graduates. While I drew his attention to the guidance (which came out at the end of July 2001) which said that research assistants “are likely to be graduates”, Mr Conway said that no mention was made of what the qualifications should be.55 While he noted that half his son’s work was clerical, the clerical work was such that it required thought. He did not know, however, what calculation he had made in establishing the salary level.
101. In concluding this part of the discussion, Mr Conway said: “You ask what qualifications he had. You may argue about what would be reasonable or moral—but that would apply to a lot of MPs. Was I intentionally breaking the rules? No. Was Henry capable? Yes. Was he qualified? He was not qualified but he was not required to be qualified. Was the level of salary reasonable? I think it was. Was he excessively remunerated? I don’t believe so. Was he capable of commanding that salary outside the House? He did the moment he left me. He was not just qualified but competent. There are witnesses who saw him at work … . Henry conducted himself well.” Mr Conway said while the Commission now set a recommended starting point, it was not clear where staff were expected to be started, or how long they should be paid at this level. The recommendations were for guidance only.
102. In respect of bonuses, Mr Conway said that at that time, if there was money in the budget at the end of the year, the staff would get a bonus. The fact that the Director of Operations sent a letter to all Members about this every year suggested that it was general practice. The giving of the bonus was not a logical process. He had not calculated it scientifically. Maybe they should be allocated in a more rigorous fashion, but that was not a matter for him to decide. He did not split in his mind the bonus and the uprating of the salary in 2002-03. His son had received £31,000 over 39 months.
103. Turning to record keeping, Mr Conway said that he had apologised for not keeping appropriate records. But the House did not require him to keep records from before the 2005 general election. And he did not keep papers. He would have read them and discarded them. His son did not keep the files of work he produced. He did, however, keep the ‘Raise Again’ and ‘Awaiting Reply’ files.
55 WE 69
38 Mr Derek Conway MP
104. Mr Conway said that his son’s work was done on a Parliamentary computer, but they were changed over in 2005, so he would not expect that any files were kept. He did not know if any of his son’s press releases or other work was saved on the Parliamentary network.
105. Having considered Mr Conway’s oral evidence I decided that I should follow up the following issues to see whether it was possible to produce additional evidence in support of what Mr Conway had told me. These issues were: a) Mr Conway’s request for an additional desk for his son; b) The dates when desks were allocated to Mr Conway, his staff and to the secretary who recalled seeing Mr Henry Conway in his early months of employment in the shared secretaries’ room; c) Whether there was any evidence of Mr Henry Conway’s work on the Parliamentary IT system, despite the passage of time; d) The guidance given by the House authorities to Members about record keeping which Mr Conway said meant that records prior to 2005 were no longer kept by Members; e) Clarification of some of the advice given by the then Department of Finance and Administration about the employment and job descriptions of research assistants and the contacts Mr Conway had with the Department on his son’s salary, bonus and overtime payments.
106. I report on each of these issues in turn in the following paragraphs.
Additional desk
107. I wrote to the Director of Accommodation Services on 18 September asking whether the Department had any record of a request from Mr Conway for a second desk/workstation to be provided, perhaps in the shared secretaries’ room where his Commons secretary was located. The Director of Accommodation Services responded on 1 October.56 He said that he held no correspondence recording any request for additional accommodation before 3 July 2006. He annexed to that letter an e-mail from Mr Conway dated 3 July 2006 requesting a further desk in the relevant secretaries’ area. He noted that Mr Conway stated in that e-mail that he “has been on the waiting list for some years for a second secretarial desk”.57 I wrote to the Director to ask whether the Department no longer held records of requests for additional accommodation from 2001 or whether, among those records, there was no copy of a request for additional accommodation from Mr Conway. And I asked whether it was possible that such a request was received and either had not been filed or had not been retained on the files.
56 WE 43 57 Not reproduced here
Mr Derek Conway MP 39
108. The Director of Accommodation Services responded on 16 October.58 He said that he considered that if a written request for additional accommodation had been received before the e-mail request they had on 3 July 2006, it was “extremely likely” that this would be held on file. The Department held records on the allocation of accommodation from the time a Member was elected until they retired or were defeated, when the records were destroyed. Staff who dealt with Members’ accommodation were “punctilious in their record keeping”. If an oral request, however, for additional accommodation had been received, it would not be recorded as a file note. I shared this information with Mr Conway in my letter of 20 October.59
109. Mr Conway responded on 31 October.60 He said that whether an earlier letter could be found or not, his statement of 3 July 2006 that he had been on the waiting list for some years, made some two years before my investigation commenced, demonstrated that for several years he had been on the waiting list for a second staff desk.
110. Mr Conway wrote to me further on 3 November.61 He said that his search of his Whips Office file had brought up a copy of a letter dated 8 March 2005 addressed to the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip in which Mr Conway had stated that: “in 2002 I was entered on [the Serjeant at Arms Office’s] list of Members seeking a second secretarial desk on the Parliamentary estate”62. He had asked whether the then Opposition Deputy Chief Whip was content to advise the Serjeant at Arms Office that he was content to allocate to him the second desk adjacent to his secretary in the shared secretaries’ room. He also attached a copy of a letter from himself and another Member dated 12 February 2003 to the Clerk in Charge in the Serjeant at Arms Office stating that they each wished to apply for a desk for a research assistant and asking that the two allocations be made in the shared secretaries room.63 Mr Conway concluded that the references to a date earlier than the Director of Accommodation Services had on his file (2006) demonstrated that he had requested an additional staff desk early in the 2001–05 Parliament.
111. I showed this correspondence to the Director of Accommodation Services. He responded on 11 November.64 He noted that: “We do not have a copy of the letter dated 12 February 2003 (unsigned) from Mr Conway and [another Member] to the Clerk in Charge on either Mr Conway’s or [the other Member’s] files”. The Director said that Mr Conway’s file contained no correspondence between 2001 and 2005. But they had one e-mail from the Clerk in Charge produced on or around 5 July 2006 in response to Mr Conway’s request for another desk in the shared secretaries’ room which stated that: “This is not the first time he [Mr Conway] has tried to get a desk in [the shared secretaries’ room].” There was no evidence, however, as to when Mr Conway might have made his previous request. I
58 WE 44 59 WE 45 60 WE 46 61 WE 47 62 WE 48 63 WE 49 64 WE 50
40 Mr Derek Conway MP
wrote to Mr Conway on 12 November to show him the Director’s reply. I suggested that, subject to any further comments he might wish to make, that was probably as far as this issue could be taken.
112. In a letter to me of 14 November about other matters Mr Conway noted that, in my predecessor’s report on the complaint against him about the employment of his younger son, a second search by the Department of Finance and Administration had located certain paperwork which it had previously said it had not received.65 He noted that a similar problem had arisen on the date of his application for a second staff desk allocation, where, in his view, the records of the Department of Facilities did not accurately reflect the position. He suggested that where the Department was used to establish a matter as “incontrovertible fact” and it was shown not to be “quite the case”, then this area of doubt should be taken into account.
113. In a further letter of 19 November, Mr Conway said that he had maintained from the outset that his request predated the Department’s record of 2006.66 Mr Conway said that the Department had no record of the letter from him and the other Member (dated 12 February 2003) and it had not located and given to me an e-mail from an official in the Serjeant at Arms office dated 8 March 2005 which he enclosed with his letter. This was an e-mail exchange between Mr Conway and an official in the Serjeant at Arms office headed “2nd Desk”. The official’s e-mail concluded: “As far as the Lower Secretaries’ area is concerned, it is the only area in the Palace for Members’ staff and it is my view that it would not be right, other than in special circumstances, to allocate more than one desk to any Member as that would reduce the chances for others to have a staff desk in the House”. Mr Conway noted that this postdated his son’s employment, but predated the Department’s records. He said it “followed many years conversations and exchanges” with the Serjeant at Arms office.
114. I subsequently received a letter of 26 November from the Opposition Chief Whip, Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, the Member for West Derbyshire, giving his recollection of discussing the question of a second desk with Mr Conway on a number of occasions during the 2001–2005 Parliament.67
Dates for the allocation of office desks
115. I wrote to the Director of Accommodation Services on 2 October to ask about the dates when Mr Conway and his staff were allocated desks following the 2001 general election, and the dates when Secretary B, who had given me evidence, shared the same secretaries’ room as Mr Conway’s secretary. The Director of Accommodation Services replied on 6 October.68 He confirmed that Mr Derek Conway’s desk was available for occupation from 5 July 2001. The desk for Mr Conway’s staff was initially allocated on 14
65 WE 51 66 WE 52 67 WE 53 68 WE 54. I have not included the annexes to this letter.
Mr Derek Conway MP 41
June 2001 and then relinquished in favour of a desk in the shared secretaries’ room from 18 June 2001. A desk in the same area was available to the other Member’s secretary from 5 July 2001.
116. I subsequently wrote to the Director of Accommodation Services asking when Secretary B’s use of that desk came to an end. The Director of Accommodation Services wrote to me on 8 October to say that it seemed that alternative accommodation was allocated from 14 March 2003.69 Following receipt of this letter, I wrote to Secretary B to ask her to confirm this. Secretary B responded on 15 October confirming that she had occupied the desk in the shared secretaries’ room until she moved to her new accommodation in 2003.70 She noted that her evidence was based on her memory of eight years ago and that the “few months” she had referred to in her previous evidence “was obviously somewhat condensed in my mind since it seems it was closer to 20 months that I was there”.
117. I shared this information with Mr Conway.
IT records
118. I wrote to Mr Conway on 19 September asking whether it might be possible to locate press releases, reports and précis prepared by his son using Parliamentary IT equipment.71 Having taken advice from Parliamentary authorities, I noted that files produced between 2001 and 2004 might be found on the hard drive of Mr Conway’s Parliamentary PCs. I had been told that it was very possible that material from his pre-2005 PC was stored on its replacement. I understood there might also be material on the Parliamentary network. I invited Mr Conway to arrange for his secretary to make these searches or to authorise the Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology staff to undertake the work for him.
119. Mr Conway replied on 2 October.72 Mr Conway said that the Parliamentary Communications Directorate had not moved any files over to his new computers which had been provided following the 2005 general election. This was because his Commons secretary was capable of that action and had prepared the old equipment for handover. She retained on disc material which he considered might be needed for future use, mainly photographs for use in the constituency. He understood that files stored on his personal drive and on shared drives were retained after deletion for four weeks and twelve weeks respectively. The Parliamentary Communications Directorate had had to replace one of the upgraded computers due to a serious virus which could not be eliminated.
69 WE 55 70 WE 56 71 WE 57 72 WE 58
42 Mr Derek Conway MP
120. Mr Conway attached a list of the publicity material which he had retained on disc. For technical reasons, the list was not able, however, to identify the dates when the photographs were taken.
121. Mr Conway said that his son assisted him on his son’s personal laptop which pre- dated his election in 2001 and the supply of Parliamentary equipment. His son used that laptop to edit the photographs. He did not assist with the actual preparation of press releases.
122. Mr Conway said that his son accessed Parliamentary IT equipment to read, assess and edit Mr Conway’s mailbox. Since his son had used his father’s log-in, it would not identify that his son was the person accessing the e-mails and, even if the Parliamentary IT staff could retrieve the data, which he said they could not, it would not assist in identifying “the human behind the mechanical operation”. Mr Conway added that if the purpose of my request was to assess the volume of incoming mail in order to conclude how many hours it would have taken to perform this function, he had no reason to believe his mailbox was either less or greater than that of any other Member.
123. With regard to research, Mr Conway noted that his son had explained to me that he would annotate incoming reports, highlighting the parts he considered would be of interest. Often his son would staple a handwritten note to the front of a report summarising its content. When he prepared a specific briefing note, it would either be by hand (which Mr Conway preferred) or it was produced as a Word document which was not saved and filed since Mr Conway did not require that. The submission would be printed off.
124. Mr Conway concluded that it had not occurred to him, over seven years ago, that it would be prudent to retain a record of such activity. He remained sceptical that many Members kept such detailed records. It would be for others to conclude if detailed work records should have been maintained, but he believed such a conclusion would be at odds with the ruling by the House of Commons Commission which had set a four-year ceiling on information retention. He referred me to what he said was Mr Speaker’s instruction to the Department of Resources.
125. I wrote to Mr Conway on 8 October.73 I noted that as far as he was aware, it was not possible to retrieve records from his computer as far back as 2001 to 2004. But, in any event, it would appear from what he had said that his son saved on the PC none of the material he produced. I took it, therefore, that there would be nothing to retrieve. I asked him, however, whether it was possible for him to identify how many of the photographs he retained on disc his son was likely to have worked on.
73 WE 59
Mr Derek Conway MP 43
126. Mr Conway responded on 14 October.74 He said that it was not possible to identify which of the photographs required his son’s assistance, but it was not claimed that this activity was a significant aspect of his support.
127. I also wrote to Mr Henry Conway asking him to confirm that he used his personal laptop for editing photographs; if he could confirm that his briefing notes and précis were produced usually on one sheet of A4 paper, sometimes covered with a Post-It note, and that sometimes his précis was a manuscript note stapled to the incoming document.75 I asked for some idea of what proportion of the briefings and précis produced were handwritten rather than on the PC and if he could confirm that he did not save any of these documents.
128. Mr Henry Conway responded on 14 October.76 He said that, when his father was elected, Parliamentary computer equipment was not immediately supplied and did not have the picture editing software which his laptop had. He used his laptop to produce summaries, but it was not necessary to save these as they were solely for his father’s use. When he was editing his father’s e-mails it was necessarily undertaken on Parliamentary equipment.
129. I wrote further to Mr Henry Conway on 20 October asking for further clarification of the medium used for his précis and research summaries and for an idea of what proportion of documents were produced using IT and what were handwritten.77 I asked him also to let me know whether he used only his laptop when producing précis and briefings, and not House of Commons IT equipment.
130. Mr Henry Conway replied on 31 October.78 He said that the work he produced was: “a mix of research notes, often handwritten notes attached to the front of pre-printed reports, or tab-markers attached to parts of pre-printed reports with sections for my father’s attention highlighted”. Since this was exclusively for his father’s information, it was not considered necessary to produce lengthy formal reports. It was not possible at this distance to provide an accurate assessment of what work was initiated by his father and what was provided “as a synopsis of incoming reports”. He acted as a filter of incoming reports with emphasis on those relating to his father’s specific interests, and those concerning London and his constituency. On the equipment he used, his use of equipment supplied by Parliament tended to be mainly for the editing of e-mails, both at his father’s flat and in his office at the House of Commons.
131. I sent a copy of his son’s letter to Mr Conway on 5 November noting that I thought I had taken this as far as I needed to, subject to any comments he wished to make.
74 WE 60 75 WE 61 76 WE 62 77 WE 63 78 WE 64
44 Mr Derek Conway MP
Terms and conditions
132. I wrote to the Director of Operations on 18 September asking to see copies of any guidance available during 2001 on the appointment of research assistants, given that Mr Conway had suggested in his evidence to me that it was not right to say that the Department’s pay guidance issued in July 2001 suggested that research assistants were likely to be graduates.79 I asked also whether he could confirm Mr Conway’s suggestion in his evidence to me that Mr Henry Conway’s job description dated 1 July 2001 was a stock job description provided by the then Department of Finance and Administration. I asked whether it was possible that Mr Conway, as he suggested to me in oral evidence, might have written to the Department to request Mr Henry Conway’s initial payment of salary before he signed the form requesting such a payment on 27 November 2001. And finally, I asked if he could let me have information about how the bonus and overtime payments which Mr Conway had sought in his letter of 4 March 2004 had been calculated to meet Mr Conway’s wishes that a total sum of £2,000 should be paid to his son.
133. The Director of Member Liaison Services responded on 4 November.80 In relation to advice given to Members about salaries and job descriptions, the Director said that the then Head of the Fees Office had sent letters to Members on 11 July and 31 July 2001.81 The letter of 11 July stated in respect of staff contracts: “If you need to take on new staff immediately, we suggest that you use short-term contracts (model contracts are available now) to allow the Advisory Panel time to finalise the content of the standard contract, job descriptions and pay rates that were recommended in the SSRB report”.
134. The letter from the Head of the Fees Office of 31 July included summaries of job descriptions, with pay ranges and recommended starting pay for London and the provinces82. The job description for research/parliamentary assistants stated: “research/parliamentary assistants are likely to be graduates. They need good research skills, the ability to think analytically, good communication skills and a good understanding of the political environment”. The job description provided that they should undertake research from readily available sources; analyse, interpret and present the results; and deal with routine constituency correspondence independently. They might also deal with a range of visitors, progress casework by forwarding it to other agencies; and “undertake some administrative tasks”. The pay range was £11,000–£26,500. The guidance attached to the letter said that: “Between the floor and ceiling of each range, there are no specific intermediate pay points: Members will need to choose an appropriate pay level to meet the particular case. For example, the top end of the pay range allows for experience and good performance to be rewarded, whilst the bottom end will be appropriate for a less experienced employee.”
79 WE 65 80 WE 66 81 WE 67and WE 68 82 WE 69
Mr Derek Conway MP 45
135. In a section of the guidance on choosing a pay level, it referred to the recommended starting pay for new employees and recommended that: “new staff outside London with little relevant experience should be paid at the bottom of this range……..But Members may want to pay a little more for a new employee with relevant experience, and to staff based in London………… 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 guidance gave a recommended starting pay for London-based employees of £15,000.
136. The letter of 31 July 2001 requested that: “Members who have existing staff whose pay is higher or lower than the levels suggested by this guidance are asked to inform the Fees Office”. Those who wished to employ part-timers were invited to ask the Fees Office to calculate the pay rate. On bonuses, the advice stated that: “Members may pay staff bonuses, provided that they can afford these out of the Incidental Expenses Provision or the staffing budget. Bonuses should not exceed 15% of gross annual salary”.
137. Turning to the job description for Mr Henry Conway, the Director said that he could find no evidence that it was a “stock” job description supplied by the Department. He enclosed a pro forma job description currently used for packs provided for new staff.83.It provided headings, but no text.
138. Turning to the other matters I had raised, the Director of Member Liaison Services said: a) He could find no correspondence on Mr Henry Conway’s file prior to Form A (the request for pay form sent on 27 November 2001) being received. It was possible that Mr Conway wrote asking about how to set up a new employee and was sent a starter pack, but no such correspondence was on any of their files. b) On the bonus and overtime payments made in March and April 2004, he said that Mr Conway had asked for an additional £2,000 net to be paid to Mr Henry Conway in March 2004. This was interpreted as a bonus and reduced to £1,500 (gross) to stay within the 15% annual salary rule. A member of the payroll team had then contacted Mr Conway to explain the reduction in payment, following which the sum of £829 was paid as overtime. It was not clear from the Department’s records why this precise sum was paid. It did not equate to the sum required to match the original request for a net payment of £2,000.
139. I wrote to Mr Conway on 6 November to show him the Director’s response of 4 November and to see whether it was possible to agree with him some of the factual issues relating to the terms and conditions on which he had employed his son.84
83 WE 70 84 WE 71
46 Mr Derek Conway MP
140. Mr Conway responded with a letter of 14 November.85 In response to the questions in my letter to him of 6 November, Mr Conway responded as follows: a) He confirmed that his son started work for him on 1 July 2001 and that that was the date when he had signed the contract. He noted that two of the witness statements had referred to seeing his son in the office in the period July to December 2001. b) In response to my question about whether he had considered seeking to put his son on a short-term contract in the light of the letter of 11 July 2001 from the Head of the Fees Office,86 Mr Conway said he did not recall seeing that letter, although, as it was over seven years ago, that might not be unusual. Regardless of that, putting staff on short- term contracts was a suggestion, it was not a requirement. c) In response to whether Mr Conway accepted that his son’s job description was not a job description provided by the Department and that it was therefore reasonable to conclude that it was drafted by him or within his office, Mr Conway said that that conclusion was not inevitable. The job description was appended to the contract of employment which he presumed was not doubted as a draft departmental document. Had the drafting of the job description been initiated by him, it would not have included sections on confidentiality as the family relationship would have rendered such a concern irrelevant. Mr Conway noted that the Director of Operations, in his letter of 9 April,87 had mentioned that the terms of Mr Conway’s contract largely followed the model recommended by the Department, so Mr Conway had no reason to consider it differed significantly from the general provision at the time. But he emphasised that this was neither a rule nor a requirement. d) Mr Conway noted that the Department’s advice of 31 July 2001 that research assistants were “likely to be graduates” post-dated his son’s appointment and was in any event advice, not a rule or requirement. e) Mr Conway did not accept that, on the basis of the evidence, his first request for payment for his son was when he submitted Form A on 27 November 2001. He believed his first instruction to the Department was a written note. The form followed at their request. The use of standardised forms was a later introduction.
141. In conclusion, Mr Conway noted that some part of the Director’s letter of 4 November 2008 contradicted the letter of 9 April 2008 from the Director of Operations.
142. I wrote to Mr Conway on 18 November.88 I noted that the statement that his first instruction to the Department was a written note, and that the form followed at the Department’s request, was a firmer recollection of the sequence of events than he had given me when we met on 16 September. I asked him to clarify the contradiction he believed
85 WE 51 86 WE 67 87 WE 15 88 WE 72
Mr Derek Conway MP 47
there was between the Director of Member Liaison Service’s letter of 4 November and the Director of Operation’s letter of 9 April.
143. Mr Conway responded on 21 November.89 In respect of the question of his pay instruction to the Department, he said that this was a recollection on his part “and indeed a likelihood”, although he did not have a copy of the original information. He noted that the Department could not state factually the precise date [when they had received the contract of employment and job description] so the contractual date (of 1 July 2001) was the only firm evidence before me.
144. In respect of the contradiction between the letters from the House authorities, he noted that the Director of Operations in his letter of 9 April made the point that his son’s contract had “largely followed the model recommended”. Mr Conway said that the contract incorporated the job description. That was a different emphasis from the letter of 4 November from the Director of Member Liaison Services [which had said that the Director could find no evidence that the job description was a “stock” job description supplied by the Department].
145. I wrote to Mr Conway to say that, as I read the letter of 9 April from the Director of Operations, the reference was to the contract of employment. The reference by the Director of Member Liaison Services was to the job description. I noted, but did not necessarily accept, Mr Conway’s view that the reference by the Director of Operations to the contract included the reference to the job description. I said I did not propose to pursue this further with the Department or with Mr Conway himself.
146. In responding on 24 December 2008 to the draft factual sections of this memorandum, which I had sent him, Mr Conway referred to the statement in the guidance attached to the Fees Office’s letter of 31 July 2001 that “Members may want to pay a little more for a new employee with some relevant experience and to staff based in London.” He said he wished to draw “specific attention to the use of and as well as the phrase some relevant experience, which is not the same as fully experienced.” He suggested it could reasonably be argued that this sentence and the following sentence recommending that new starters should only be paid in excess of the recommended starting pay if they were fully experienced, were contradictory.
Record keeping
147. I wrote to the Director of Operations on 8 October90. I referred to the evidence Mr Conway had given me that: “the House of Commons Commission in 2002 instructed that personal records should be kept for only the three years preceding the current year, except for those relating to pensions”, and to Mr Conway’s statement that there was “a ruling by the House of Commons Commission which has set a four year ceiling on information
89 WE 73 90 WE 74
48 Mr Derek Conway MP
retention” and in this context referring me to “Mr Speaker’s instruction to the Department of Resources”. I asked the Director for further information about the reported ruling by the House of Commons Commission and for confirmation of its effect on the advice the Department gave Members about the retention of their employment and other records.
148. The Director of Member Liaison Services responded on 10 November.91 He said that the House of Commons Commission ruling in 2002 about the retention of personal records referred to the records that the House of Commons kept, specifically about staff of the House, but also their records of payments to and on behalf of Members of Parliament. (The minutes of the Commission’s meeting of 21 October 2002, which the Director sent me, recorded the Commission’s approval to, among other points, “detailed information about individual transactions including receipts, invoices, warrants etc” being kept for three years after the date of the transaction.) The Director said that the guidance given by the Commission had subsequently been formalised in the Parliamentary archives document “Authorised Record Disposal Practice” (published in June 2004). This guidance provided different disposal instructions according to the nature of the record kept. I noted that, for example, it recommended that case files of correspondence with Members should be destroyed three years after action was completed; Members’ staff employment records, including their contract of employment and their job description, should be destroyed six years after the termination of employment; and records authorising payment of salaries should be destroyed three years after the end of the financial year, except records required directly for pension purposes.
149. The Director noted that while this would be “a good rule of thumb for Members”, the Department had never issued specific or formal guidance to Members on the retention of their own personnel records. Information was provided about the retention of casework files in the booklet “Advice for Members’ Offices”. That advice provided among other things as follows: “In general there is no requirement to keep files beyond the life of a Parliament. .. It is up to you to decide how long to keep your files. We suggest either two years or the length of a Parliament as a minimum. But the longer you keep them the more trouble they may cause you!”
150. Having sent Mr Conway a copy of the Director’s letter of 10 November, Mr Conway responded on 13 November.92 He accepted that the Commission’s ruling was to the Departments under its direction, rather than an “edict to Members”. But he considered that the principle remained the same in that it was unreasonable to expect a Member to retain records for a longer period than the officials of the House. He noted that on 21 October 2002 the Commission resolved that records be kept for three years after transaction; and the Members’ Services Authorised Records Disposal Practice instruction to officials of June 2004 stated that, on advice from HM Inland Revenue and the National Audit Office, three years should apply. He noted also that in the advice to Members’ offices, it specifically stated that there was “NO REQUIREMENT” to keep files beyond the life of a Parliament.
91 WE 75 92 WE 76
Mr Derek Conway MP 49
He concluded that the points he had repeatedly made during the course of my investigation about matters over seven years distant had been substantiated by the production of these documents.
Additional Evidence
151. In responding on 24 December 2008 to the draft factual sections of this memorandum which I had sent him, Mr Conway said that his son had demonstrated he had some experience relevant to his employment as a research assistant since he had been Chairman of the school art gallery. He added: “The gallery is not simply an internal school display point but a substantial building open to and widely used by the public and highly regarded for the quality of its exhibitions. Henry’s role had a strong research element in that he had to research the provenance of exhibits and the artists, prepare and write catalogues and archive information.”
Findings of Fact
152. Mr Conway employed his son Mr Henry Conway as his research assistant from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004 overlapping by one month with the employment of Mr Freddie Conway which began on 1 September 2004. Mr Conway and Mr Henry Conway jointly signed Mr Henry Conway’s contract and dated it 1 July 2001. A job description was attached to the contract. A copy of the contract together with the job description was sent by Mr Conway to the Fees Office some time between July and November 2001. The contract largely followed the model recommended by the Department for use by Members. The authorship of the job description is unclear. Mr Henry Conway held a House of Commons pass which Mr Conway applied for on 25 June 2001 and which was issued on 5 October that year.
153. The contract provided that Mr Henry Conway should be paid initially at £8,000 a year for an 18-hour week. On 27 November 2001 Mr Conway submitted the form requesting that his son be added to the payroll. Mr Conway states that he requested payment in an earlier note to the Fees Office and that, in response, they asked him to submit this form, but no record of this exchange has been found. Mr Henry Conway’s first salary payment was made in December 2001, backdated to 1 July.
154. Following requests from Mr Conway his son was paid bonuses as follows:
2001–02: £1,200
2002–03: £1,188
2003–04: £1,500
2004–05: no bonus paid.
155. Over the period of Mr Henry Conway’s employment, Members were permitted to pay bonuses to their staff as long as they did not exceed 15% of the member of staff’s gross annual salary, and provided there was sufficient in their Parliamentary account to meet the
50 Mr Derek Conway MP
costs. The bonus for 2002-03 was less than 15% of Mr Henry Conway’s salary since there were insufficient funds in Mr Conway’s account to cover the full amount. For 2003-04, Mr Conway initially asked that his son should be paid a sum of £2,000 net, in addition to his monthly salary. He subsequently confirmed that he wished him to receive an additional sum of £2,000 to “represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties”. In addition to a bonus of £1,500, representing a 15% bonus, the Fees Office recorded that they had confirmed with Mr Conway that Mr Henry Conway should be paid £829 overtime.
156. Mr Conway and Mr Henry Conway have stated that the overtime payment which was paid in April 2004 was for sorting through boxes and filing cabinets, some of which were water-damaged. This work was undertaken in the cellar of Mr Conway’s flat. On the basis of the overtime payment made to Mr Henry Conway, at one and a half times his pay rate, this would have represented between three and four full weekends’ work.
157. In March 2003, Mr Conway asked that Mr Henry Conway’s salary should be increased to £10,000 backdated to 1 April 2002. Mr Conway has stated that this increase was well within the pay range then established for research assistants. Mr Conway made no further salary increase to his son from that date.
158. There was no specific guidance in relation to staff pay before 31 July 2001, other than that it needed to be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred to support the Member in their Parliamentary duties. On 11 July 2001—ten days after Mr Conway had started to employ his son—the Fees Office issued preliminary guidance. On 31 July 2001 detailed guidance was issued by the Fees Office about the expectations, duties and pay ranges for Members’ staff.
159. The advice for research/parliamentary assistants in the guidelines issued on 31 July 2001 was that they were likely to be graduates. They needed good research skills, the ability to think analytically, good communication skills and a good understanding of the political environment. Their tasks involved undertaking research from readily available sources; analysing, interpreting and presenting the results; and dealing with routine constituency correspondence independently. In addition, it was suggested that they might also deal with a range of visitors, progress casework by forwarding it to other agencies and undertake some administrative tasks.
160. The pay range for research/parliamentary assistants was from £11,000 to £26,500. The section of the guidance on choosing a pay band within that range suggested that Members might want to pay a little more for a new employee with some relevant experience, and to staff based in London. The recommended starting pay for London employees was set at £15,000. The guidance recommended that new starters should only be paid in excess of the recommended starting pay if they were fully experienced.
161. Mr Conway does not recall reading this guidance from the Fees Office and took no action on it in respect of his son. He has argued in his evidence that the Department’s guidance accorded flexibility and discretion to the Member within the parameters of the employee’s pay range.
Mr Derek Conway MP 51
162. On the basis of a 37½ hour week, Mr Henry Conway’s full-time equivalent annual salary was £16,667 in July 2001 and £20,833 from April 2002 until he ceased employment on 1 October 2004. Compared to the research/parliamentary assistants’ pay range which was promulgated on 31 July 2001, and taking account of the fact that Mr Henry Conway was employed for 18 hours a week and of annual up-rating of the range, Mr Conway paid his son £800 above the bottom of the range for London based employees in 2001–02; £2,562 above it in 2002–03; £2,287 above it in 2003–04 and £2,025 above it in 2004–05. In those years, and on the same basis, Mr Conway paid his son £4,720, £3,140, £3,626 and £4,089 below the top of the pay range for research/parliamentary assistants.
163. Overall, Mr Henry Conway’s remuneration for each year of his employment, including salary, bonuses and overtime, was as follows:
2001–02 £ 7,200
2002–03 £11,188
2003–04 £12,329
2004–05 £ 5,027
Total £35,744
164. Mr Conway made no record at the time of Mr Henry Conway’s work pattern including the hours he worked. In any event, he would have destroyed any such record at the 2005 general election, in accordance with the advice to Members from the House authorities.
165. Mr Henry Conway had nearly completed the first year of his undergraduate course at the Courtauld Institute of Art, studying the History of Art, when he was first appointed by Mr Conway. He had three A-levels and was attending a sought-after course. He had experience at school undertaking research in the school library and experience as Chairman of the school art gallery which Mr Conway has stated involved his son, among other things, in researching and writing catalogues. He had no experience as a paid researcher or as an administrative assistant.
166. Mr Henry Conway graduated in the summer of 2003. After graduation, and in his final year of employment as Mr Conway’s research assistant, Mr Henry Conway completed a Masters degree at the Courtauld Institute. On leaving Mr Conway’s employment and completing his Masters degree, he gained full-time employment at a rate significantly higher than he received as Mr Conway’s research assistant.
167. Mr Henry Conway provided support for Mr Conway as his research assistant as Mr Conway and the work required. His academic obligations were reasonably flexible, having a lecture commitment of six hours a week in 2001-02, which fixed commitments reduced in his subsequent years. Mr Henry Conway’s evidence is that his social life did not prevent
52 Mr Derek Conway MP
him from undertaking work as his father’s research assistant. While his work pattern for Mr Conway varied, the evidence from Mr Conway and his son is that typically Mr Henry Conway would work five days a week for two to three hours in the morning, perhaps up to an hour in the late afternoon, and perhaps a couple of hours over the weekend. The workload was less in recesses. Overall, Mr Henry Conway’s evidence is that he worked his full contracted hours, but not more, except for his one overtime session.
168. Mr Henry Conway’s work did not follow exactly the job description attached to his contract of 1 July 2001. His duties were a mix of administrative/clerical functions and research-related work. About half his time was spent on the former, half on the latter. On the evidence from Mr Conway and his son, the administrative functions involved taking the post which arrived for Mr Conway in the House of Commons, sharing with Mr Conway’s secretary the task of sorting it; filling envelopes; managing the files for Mr Conway’s forthcoming engagements and the file of papers awaiting a reply from others; greeting guests; liaising with Mr Conway’s constituency secretary and photocopying constituents’ letters; checking Mr Conway’s e-mails and printing out those Mr Conway needed to see while deleting the rest; taking cuttings from local newspapers and editing photographs for press releases. There is corroboratory evidence from a number of witnesses who saw Mr Henry Conway dealing with the mail and using Mr Conway’s Commons secretary’s House of Commons computer. Mr Conway has also shown me a photograph of his son with an Ambassador in a House of Commons meeting room.
169. On the evidence of Mr Conway and his son, Mr Henry Conway’s research-related functions involved identifying, sometimes on his own initiative, sometimes following Mr Conway’s guidance, documents from the post which Mr Conway needed to be aware of; summarising those documents either on one sheet of paper, normally handwritten, or on a post-it note or by a tab and highlighter drawing attention to what Mr Conway should see. These documents related to London based organisations and to Mr Conway’s other interests, particularly animal welfare and defence. Mr Henry Conway’s evidence is that he spent about half of his research time (which time amounted to nine of his 18 hours a week) reading through these documents.
170. Their evidence is that Mr Henry Conway also produced brief reports on overseas countries which Mr Conway asked for in respect of his involvement in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union. These reports were usually produced on one sheet of paper, often handwritten. They were produced based on internet searches of newspapers, and country-based and travel-based websites. They provided basic information about each country, on such matters as the general population, the economy, political, social and commercial matters, and diplomatic representation. They were wholly factual. Mr Conway did not read them all. None of these reports was retained. Witnesses have not given corroborating evidence of Mr Henry Conway carrying out this work, although one witness recalls discussing research-related issues with him. It is not possible at this remove, and in the absence of documentary evidence, to give any reliable indication of the volume of research-related material produced by Mr Henry Conway. The volume anyway varied. It is Mr Conway’s evidence that there were several a week.
Mr Derek Conway MP 53
171. Mr Conway had a staff desk available for use in June 2001 and a desk for his own use in July 2001. Mr Henry Conway worked in three locations, two in the House. The first was in the shared secretaries’ room where Mr Conway’s secretary had her desk. Mr Henry Conway would visit this room on occasions to help the secretary with the post and other duties. Witnesses saw him in this room on occasions throughout the period of his employment for comparatively short periods. His presence there was reported to be irregular. At some time, probably in 2002-03, Mr Conway asked the authorities for a second desk in this room. He has given evidence that this desk would have been used by Mr Henry Conway.
172. Mr Henry Conway also worked in his father’s room at the House, where he had access to his e-mails. He produced some of his summaries and research reports here, as well as undertaking some of his clerical duties. Witnesses have given evidence that Mr Henry Conway used this room.
173. The third location was his parents’ flat in Westminster. Here he undertook both clerical and research duties. A witness has given evidence that she spoke to him regularly on the telephone in the apartment.
174. The evidence from Mr Conway and his son is that much of his written work was in manuscript. Mr Henry Conway used his personal laptop for picture editing and to produce some of the summaries and research reports he prepared. But he also used the Parliamentary computer in his father’s room in the House, in the Westminster apartment and at the secretary’s desk. He used the Parliamentary computers principally to access his father’s e-mails. There are no available copies of any computer-generated work undertaken by Mr Henry Conway. None of this work was saved at the time.
175. Mr Conway made the following statement of his position in his oral evidence to me:
“Was I intentionally breaking the rules? No. Was Henry capable? Yes. Was he qualified? He was not qualified, but he was not required to be qualified. Was the level of salary reasonable? I think it was. Was he excessively remunerated? I don’t believe so. Was he capable of commanding that salary outside the House? He did the moment he left me. He was not just qualified but competent. There are witnesses who saw him at work. I think the House will view it differently this time.”
Standard of Proof
176. This allegation against Mr Conway is of a particularly serious nature, as shown by the response to my predecessor’s memorandum on the previous complaint against Mr Conway in respect of the subsequent employment of his younger son. The Committee has made clear that in serious cases a higher standard of proof is expected. In their Second Report of Session 2000-01, the Committee said:
“The courts have interpreted the concept of balance of probabilities to require a higher standard of proof in serious cases. A case such as this has serious implications for holders of public office. Accordingly we have concluded that we should need to
54 Mr Derek Conway MP
be persuaded that these allegations were significantly more likely to be true than not to be true before we could properly uphold them.”93
177. That is the standard I have adopted when considering this complaint in relation to Mr Conway’s employment of his son Mr Henry Conway.
Conclusions
178. The question I am to consider is whether Mr Conway breached the rules of the House as they were between 2001 and 2004 in paying his son from Parliamentary allowances for work he did not do. Linked to this allegation, I must also consider whether Mr Conway overpaid his son for any such work. Were I to find that Mr Conway had done either, that would be contrary to the rules of the House as they were in 2001 that Parliamentary expenditure, including on staff, must be incurred “wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of Parliamentary duties”. Expenditure for work which is not undertaken or which is set at too high a level would be expenditure which would not be necessary for the performance of Mr Conway’s Parliamentary duties.
179. On the basis of the evidence I have seen, and taking account of the necessarily high standard of proof required to substantiate the allegations against him, I am satisfied that Mr Henry Conway did undertake work for his father in support of Mr Conway’s Parliamentary duties between July 2001 and October 2004. And I do not consider that there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation that Mr Henry Conway failed to work the 18 hours a week for which he was contracted. There is no documentary evidence to substantiate this finding. But there is evidence from third party witnesses and both Mr Conway and his son gave generally credible evidence as to the work undertaken. Making proper allowances for the practices of Members at the time, and particularly recognising the passage of time, I consider it would be unfair to conclude that sufficient work was not undertaken because there is no surviving documentary evidence of such activity.
180. The remaining question, however, is whether Mr Henry Conway did enough work of the right calibre to justify the level of remuneration he received. I conclude on the basis of the evidence I have received, and which I discuss more fully below, that Mr Conway overpaid his son for the type of work he undertook. For the final two and a half years of his employment I conclude that he was paid at a level which went beyond the reasonable margin of judgement and discretion which should be properly available to all Members who employ staff. My conclusion is that from April 2002 to October 2004, Mr Conway breached the rules of the House by paying his son above the level which was necessary for the type of duties he performed.
181. The following paragraphs set out the reasons for these conclusions.
93 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Second Report of Session 2000-01, HC 89.
Mr Derek Conway MP 55
182. The July 2004 Green Book sets out criteria which, from that date, Members were expected to follow in employing staff. It was not available in this form in 2001, when Mr Conway started to employ his son, or indeed through almost all the period of his employment. It would not be right, therefore, to make any finding of a breach of the rules on any other basis than that which pertained to the period from 2001 to most of 2004, where the test was simply that the expenditure had to be wholly, exclusively and necessarily incurred in the performance of the Member’s Parliamentary duties.
183. But in fairness to Mr Conway, and as a way of applying the broad 2001 criteria to the circumstances of this particular complaint, I consider it helpful to examine the three non- financial criteria introduced in 2004. They were, in effect,:
• There must be a genuine need;
• The employee must be able and (if necessary)qualified for the job;
• The employee must be actually doing the job.
The financial test in 2004 is that the costs must be “reasonable and entirely attributable to the Member’s Parliamentary work”. This is phrased differently from that in 2001 which is that “any expenditure must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of Parliamentary duties.” I have adopted the 2001 test.
184. I consider each of the non-financial considerations against the evidence that I have received in the following sections. I then examine the financial question, “Was all the expenditure necessary?” against the 2001 test.
Was there a genuine need?
185. Members are properly given sensible latitude in deciding what support they need to perform their Parliamentary duties. Mr Conway’s need was for some clerical support and, on his own evidence and that of his son, some fairly basic analytical/research work sifting, summarising, and highlighting documents and producing short basic factual summaries, mainly of countries in which Mr Conway had a legitimate Parliamentary interest. I am satisfied that these requirements were in support of Mr Conway’s Parliamentary duties. I am satisfied too that the need he had for this work was genuine. I do not believe the evidence is such as to sustain an accusation that Mr Conway “made work” for his son for which he had no real Parliamentary need.
Was Mr Henry Conway able and qualified?
186. On the basis of his academic performance, Mr Henry Conway was an able student. He was awarded a good first degree and awarded a Masters degree. He was not a graduate when he started work for Mr Conway. His work in the school library and as Chairman of the school art gallery may have helped. But he had no paid research experience, or knowledge of the issues he researched for Mr Conway. And he claimed no experience of paid office work. In my judgement, his research and office skills were therefore basic. But I do not consider Mr Conway required much more than basic administrative and research
56 Mr Derek Conway MP
skills for the work he wanted to be undertaken. Mr Henry Conway needed a reasonable level of intellect and common sense, and needed to be able to work with a Member of Parliament and connect well with his other staff. The evidence I have been given, namely the oral evidence given by Mr Conway and his son and the evidence from the secretaries with whom he had contact, allows me to conclude that Mr Henry Conway sufficiently met all these requirements. I conclude that Mr Henry Conway was able and sufficiently qualified to do the job Mr Conway wanted him to undertake.
Did Mr Henry Conway actually do the job?
187. It is not possible after this period of time to come to a firm conclusion on whether Mr Henry Conway worked his full 18 hours a week as required by his contract. But, given the passage of time, it would be unfair to find against Mr Conway on the basis of inadequate evidence. There is evidence that Mr Henry Conway was seen about the House working for his father and I accept the evidence from the constituency secretary that she had regular contacts with Mr Conway’s son. Based on the evidence I have received, Mr Henry Conway undertook some of his work in the shared secretaries’ room, but I think it unlikely that he spent significant amounts of time there: he had no desk and the sightings by the secretaries appear to have been spasmodic. I have no reason to doubt that he spent more of his time in his father’s room in the House and more still in the Westminster apartment. The evidence from the constituency secretary supports this conclusion. I consider that Mr Henry Conway’s presence in all three locations is sufficiently established to show that he was working for his father as his research assistant.
188. By his own evidence, Mr Henry Conway did not do that work for more than 18 hours a week (and he was not required to do so). I think it is reasonable to conclude that it was practicable for Mr Henry Conway to undertake 18 hours a week of paid employment while maintaining his undergraduate and, subsequently, post-graduate studies. The Courtauld Institute is not far from the House of Commons, and neither was his father’s apartment. The journey times were modest. And many undergraduate and graduate students take part-time jobs. Eighteen hours a week is not unprecedented or, as far as I know, particularly unusual.
189. Mr Conway may not have been alone among Members of Parliament in 2001 in not keeping employment-related records of the work undertaken by his staff. He kept neither employment records, such as hours worked, nor copies, electronic or otherwise, of documents produced. His “clear cabinet” policy may have gone further than others, but it would be unfair to single him out given the likely practices in the House at that time. Even had he kept such records, I accept that it would have been reasonable practice to have destroyed them at the end of the Parliament in 2005, or certainly by now. Members could usefully be reminded from Mr Conway’s experiences of the importance of keeping records and of being ready to demonstrate if necessary the work undertaken by their staff, but Mr Conway should not in my judgement be singled out for particular criticism because of his record keeping practices between 2001 and 2004.
Mr Derek Conway MP 57
190. I have not been able to establish beyond all doubt that Mr Henry Conway actually started work on the date when he signed his contract, and from which he was (eventually) paid. But I cannot rule out that Mr Conway put in a pay request before he submitted the pay form in November 2001 and it is understandable that the witnesses were not able reliably to date their first sightings of Mr Henry Conway at work. But the secretaries’ evidence, the fact that Mr Conway applied for a House of Commons pass for his son on 25 June 2001, that he had accommodation for himself and his secretary by July 2001, are I believe sufficient evidence to enable me to conclude that I should accept that Mr Henry Conway started paid work at the beginning of July.
191. I also consider that I should accept the evidence from Mr Conway and his son, with some corroboration from witnesses, that his son undertook the clerical duties which probably took about half of his 18 hours a week; and that he undertook the basic research and analysis required of him by his father for the remainder of the time. I have little corroboratory evidence of the research and analytical work, but I have taken account of the explanations of that work given to me by Mr Conway and his son, and recognise the difficulties in producing hard evidence of such work after such a period of time.
192. I conclude, therefore, on the basis of the standard of proof I am operating, that the allegation that Mr Conway’s son did not undertake work for 18 hours a week from 1 July 2001 to 1 October 2004 is not substantiated.
Was all the expenditure necessary?
193. I need finally to determine whether the Parliamentary expenditure incurred by Mr Conway in paying his son was necessarily incurred given the nature and quality of the work he was required to undertake. On the basis of Mr Conway’s own evidence, and that of his son, I consider that work to be at the bottom end of that required of a Parliamentary research assistant. On Mr Conway’s own evidence, half of it was clerical and administrative, although it required an element of judgement and common sense. Mr Conway described opening the post as “not a demanding task” and I consider that description applies to most of the clerical and administrative work his son undertook. This clerical and administrative element of his work (nine of his 18 hours a week) is I consider a considerably higher proportion of clerical work than is suggested in the Fees Office’s outline description of a research assistant’s role which they circulated on 31 July 2001. While that description makes provision for some administrative tasks, as well as dealing with a range of visitors and progressing casework, I do not believe it was envisaged as such a significant proportion of the job as it clearly was for Mr Henry Conway. Mr Conway began to employ his son four weeks before that letter was sent out, but I believe it is reasonable to expect any Member employing staff using Parliamentary allowances—and continuing to employ that particular member of staff for more than a further three years— to read such a document and, if necessary, to discuss with their employee the implications for their job and future salary movements in the light of the guidance given. There is no evidence that Mr Conway did so.
58 Mr Derek Conway MP
194. The analytical research work undertaken by Mr Henry Conway was relatively simple or, to use Mr Conway’s phrase, “not groundbreaking”. It involved highlighting passages in reports; putting key points on post-it notes; preparing a handwritten summary on one side of paper (or occasionally longer notes and sometimes typed notes); doing simple internet searches and putting basic factual material about a country on, generally, one side of paper. All such work was, in my judgement, appropriate for a Parliamentary research assistant. But it was not the sort of work which should attract pay which approached the mid-point of the research assistant range (as Mr Henry Conway’s pay did after his first year). Nor did Mr Henry Conway need or have the experience which might have justified such a salary.
195. I conclude that Mr Henry Conway was an inexperienced researcher doing basic research work and spending a significant proportion of his time on administrative and clerical tasks. After the first year, he could have been expected to become more proficient in his job and I think it reasonable to presume that he did so, but there is no evidence of an increase in the complexity or intensity of the work he undertook for his father. There is no evidence other than that the product remained the same.
196. Mr Henry Conway’s starting salary was £800 above what was recommended on 31 July 2001 as the starting salary for London-based research assistants in the House of Commons, having taken account of the number of hours Mr Henry Conway was contracted to work. But when Mr Conway established that salary and signed the contract with his son on 1 July 2001, he did not have the 31 July 2001 guidance. Had he had that information, it would in my judgement have been reasonable to have started his son on the basic London-based salary and unreasonable to have established it any higher. I do not accept that the research work his son undertook at school would have justified Mr Conway paying him above the recommended London starting pay had the guidance been available to Mr Conway at that time. Nevertheless, given the timing, I accept that Mr Conway set the starting salary for his son at a reasonable level in all the circumstances and he did not, therefore, break the rules of the House in doing so. I conclude that Mr Henry Conway’s starting salary was necessarily incurred for the duties he performed.
197. I do not believe, however, that the cost of the substantial increase of £2,000 in Mr Henry Conway’s salary which Mr Conway sought in 2003, and which he backdated one year, was necessarily incurred as a fair reflection of the nature of the work Mr Henry Conway undertook for his father in 2002-03 and subsequently. That represented a 25% rise in salary on top of what was already significantly higher than the bottom of the London pay range for a research assistant, established on 31 July 2001. As of March 2002 Mr Henry Conway’s qualifications for the role had not much changed, and his experience was only modestly extended. The nature of the work does not appear to have changed significantly throughout Mr Henry Conway’s employment. It remained in my judgement at or near the basic level for a Parliamentary research assistant. I do not consider on the basis of the evidence I have received that Mr Conway was justified in paying his son so far above the bottom of the pay range as he did from April 2002 to October 2004.
198. How much Mr Conway may have overpaid for the work his son did in these later years is a matter of judgement. But, given that Mr Henry Conway’s salary of £8000 a year
Mr Derek Conway MP 59
was £800 above the part-time starting pay for a research assistant working an 18 hour week (a figure established a few weeks after his son started in his employment), it might have been more appropriate to have kept him on that salary for most at least of the period of his employment in the House. Such a lower salary would also of course have affected the size of his bonus payments after his first year.
199. I therefore conclude that Mr Conway broke the rules of the House by paying his son at an unnecessarily high level for the last 2½ years of his employment. In coming to this conclusion, I have recognized that Mr Henry Conway’s salary was within the recommended pay range and I consider it reasonable and necessary for Members to have a reasonable margin of appreciation within that range in determining their staff’s salaries. But there comes a point when the actual pay level within a broad pay range cannot be justified by the type of work undertaken. At that point, the excessive expenditure thus incurred is not necessary for the performance of a Member’s Parliamentary duties. I consider that point came when Mr Conway decided to make a substantial increase to his son’s salary after his first nine months of employment and when he continued to pay him at that level for the following two and a half years.
200. I do not believe Mr Conway was unreasonable to pay his son bonuses for each year. It is of sufficiently general practice in the House, as I understand it, for Members to reward their staff in this way when their staffing budget allows it. It would be unreasonable to single Mr Conway out for special attention—or to require of him special justification—for the bonuses he paid his son. With the exception of the one year when it was reduced for cost reasons, all the bonuses made by Mr Conway to his son came within the 15% of annual pay which was the rule at the time. No bonus was paid for the final six months of Mr Henry Conway’s employment.
201. I have considered carefully whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that Mr Henry Conway did not work sufficient overtime in 2003–04 to justify the overtime payment to him of £829. The evidence might suggest that this payment was more a balancing factor to enable Mr Conway to pay his son at least what he first asked for in additional reward for the year 2003–04 (£2,000). I accept Mr Conway’s and his son’s evidence that his son had to work in a cellar sifting through water-damaged material and other boxes of paper. But I would have expected that working up to four full weekends in such conditions would have left a greater mark in the memory of Mr Conway and his son than, on the basis of their evidence to me, it did. Nevertheless, given the standard of proof I consider it fair to operate, I do not believe there is sufficient evidence to sustain an allegation that the payment was not necessary for the overtime work undertaken. Given the evidence, and the passage of time, I consider it reasonable for me to accept Mr Conway’s evidence and to conclude that the overtime payment for this work was necessary in support of Mr Conway’s Parliamentary duties.
202. I conclude therefore that Mr Conway breached the rules of the House by paying his son in the last 2½ years of his employment from April 2002 to 1 October 2004 at above the level which was necessary for the type of duties he performed, with the result that this excessive element of his Parliamentary expenditure was not necessarily incurred. 13 January 2009 John Lyon CB
60 Mr Derek Conway MP
Written evidence received by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards
1. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Duncan Borrowman, 4 February 2008
Thank you for your letter and enclosures of 31 January regarding my complaint against my MP, Mr Derek Conway.
My original complaint was directed at the employment status of Mr Conway’s son, Henry Conway, and his wife, Colette Conway in respect of their employment by Mr Conway. This centred on section 52 of the Fourth Report of Session 2007-08 “Conduct of Mr Derek Conway”.
Since submitting this complaint a large amount of information has appeared in the press, most notably the Daily Mail. I have also had numerous conversations with journalists at the Daily Mail, and its sister paper the Evening Standard as well as the chief reporter for the edition covering Mr Conway’s constituency of the News Shopper—the main local newspaper. These conversations and the press reports cover both the payments made to members of Mr Conway’s family and the pattern of work undertaken by them. This pattern of work is the critical part, and is relevant to under paragraph 5 of your predecessor’s memorandum from section 6.2.1 of the Green Book:
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.
It is clear from my conversations that the Daily Mail has in its possession copies of payments and claims for members of Mr Conway’s family processed by the Fees Office, they have also undertaken investigations into lifestyle of Henry Conway when he was being paid to undertake this work.
Mrs Colette Conway
From my discussions with the local journalist, who I am aware has no political allegiance to Mr Conway, it is clear that Mrs Conway could reliably be contacted by telephoning Mr Conway’s office. She was also clearly fulfilling the role required of her. It is also clear that the payments to Mrs Conway, while open to some public questioning, are clearly within guidelines.
As a result of the information provided to me, I wish to withdraw the complaint against Mr Conway with regard to the employment of his wife Mrs Colette Conway.
Henry Conway
The picture painted of the work of Henry Conway is somewhat different. From press reports this seems to be similar to the work pattern described in the report for Freddie. In press reports Henry is said by Mr Conway to have worked from his parents’ flat in Victoria where he would “fillet post, scrutinise emails and stuff envelopes”.
While I would not question Henry Conway’s lifestyle, it is clear that he undertook this while both a student, and having a much publicised hectic social life.
Mr Derek Conway MP 61
In addition Henry Conway received bonus payments (at or below the set 15% maximum level) and an £829.33 overtime payment in 2003/4. This raises the question as to how Henry Conway could have found not only the time to do the contracted work, but also be a student and lead his lifestyle and what extra hours he would have worked to earn such an overtime payment and bonus payment.
The Daily Mail (30 January 2008) itemises the payments to Henry Conway as:
2001/02 £8,000 salary £1,200 15% bonus paid Feb 02
2002/03 £10,000 salary £1,188 bonus (15% bonus requested, insufficient funds reduced to amount shown paid Mar 03)
2003/04 £10,000 salary £829.33 overtime paid Apr 04 £1,499.99 15% bonus paid Mar 04
Clearly in the existing report there was no evidence that Freddie Conway had undertaken the work described, but there was also no evidence that he had not undertaken the work. Clearly if this was again the picture with Henry Conway, who by his father’s admission did not work in either his Westminster or Constituency office, there would need to be further questions as to the status of the work that Henry Conway did or did not do.
This question is not mere speculation given the investigations undertaken by the press, in particular the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror.
The questions raised regarding Henry Conway’s work echo those in paragraphs 18 to 21 of the Fourth Report, as to whether the work that Henry Conway is said to have undertook would have taken the hours required by his contract, with exactly the same issues in areas such as the coincidence of college vacations and parliamentary recess etc. This would raise additional questions as to whether the salary paid was appropriate, what the bonus payments would be for and how overtime payments could be incurred.
In conclusion, I would ask that you investigate the employment of Henry Conway within the context of section 6.2.1 of the Green Book.
4 February 2008
2. Article in Daily Mail, published 29 January 2008
Shamed Tory MP who paid £1.5million to his family to quit (but not before he earns £120,000 more)
Shamed MP Derek Conway today fell on his sword and announced he would not stand again for the Tories at the next general election.
He bowed to intense pressure to quit and save his party further embarrassment and damage from the row over his payment of hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds to his wife and two sons.
With the election still an expected two years away, he should earn around £120,000 in salary.
In a statement today, he said: “I have advised the chief whip and the chairman of my local Conservative association that I shall not seek to continue as the Conservative Party Candidate for Old Bexley and Sidcup at the next election.
“Though not an original supporter of David Cameron for the leadership of my party, I believe that he has shown he has both the ability and the character to be Prime Minister of our country and I do not wish my personal circumstances to be a distraction in any way from the real issues that have to be addressed.”
62 Mr Derek Conway MP
The Daily Mail revealed that in six years the cost to the taxpayer of Mr Conway and his family was an astonishing £1,535,716.70.
The figures came to light in leaked documents seen by the Daily Mail.
They show that the MP’s wife Colette, who works legitimately as his secretary, and their sons have cost £374,401.73 in pay, bonuses and overtime since 2001.
In the same period, Mr Conway himself has received £1.16million in salary and expenses—a figure which does not include his generous parliamentary pension.
Both Mrs Conway and the couple’s sons Henry and Freddie—who the MP claimed were parliamentary researchers—received maximum bonuses of 15 per cent on more than one occasion.
Political rivals have demanded a police inquiry into the way Henry, 25, and 22-year-old Freddie Conway were paid more than £80,000 of public cash for apparently doing little work.
Henry, who once called himself ‘Queen Sloane’ in an interview with the BBC, threw a party at a Chelsea nightclub last November charmingly titled the F*** off, I'm Rich party.
The fact that Freddie was being paid as a researcher by his father while still being a full-time student at Newcastle University first came to light in his entries on the social networking website Facebook.
Freddie posted pictures of his 21st birthday party he held on the terrace of the Commons.
Yesterday Tory leader David Cameron effectively sacked the Old Bexley and Sidcup MP by withdrawing the party whip from him.
Conservative sources made clear there would be no way back for Mr Conway and that he would cease to be an MP at the next General Election.
A former anti-sleaze watchdog said it was now time for an overhaul of the entire expenses system for MPs— including the way relatives are employed.
Mr Cameron’s decisive action was contrasted by Tory insiders to Gordon Brown’s “dithering” over Peter Hain’s undeclared donations of £103,000 for three weeks before accepting his resignation last week.
Mr Cameron is desperate to distance his party from the sleaze surrounding Labour’s funding scandal.
Mr Conway was already facing a ten-day suspension after the Standards and Privileges Committee found him guilty over payments of £50,000 to Freddie, 22.
But a second investigation was triggered over Henry, 25, whose payments of more than £32,000 were revealed in the Mail yesterday.
The scandal lifted the lid on the vast expenses claims made by all 646 MPs. One in ten employs either their spouse or child as a member of staff.
Sir Alistair Graham, ex-chairman of the committee on standards in public life, called for a review of the perks system including family employees and second home allowances, which critics say is abused by a string of MPs including ministers.
He said: “There is an urgent need to clean out the stables. I argued there should be a root and branch review of MPs’ expenses and allowances.
“I would hope it would be the next issue the committee on standards would look into.”
Mr Conway said it was “understandable, if not inevitable” he was being ousted from the Tory Party.
Mr Cameron had suggested Mr Conway would not be excluded from the parliamentary party following a critical report into Freddie Conway by the Standards and Privileges Committee on Monday.
Mr Derek Conway MP 63
But Mr Cameron came under pressure to act when Labour backbencher John Mann complained to standards commissioner John Lyon about elder son Henry.
Mr Cameron said: “The usual procedure in these cases is to leave the punishment to the House of Commons authorities.
“However, having asked the Chief Whip to speak again to Mr Conway and having personally reflected overnight, I have decided to withdraw the Conservative whip from Mr Conway.”
It is understood the withdrawal of the whip is complete—meaning there is no way back for the MP.
He will sit as an independent but cannot fight the next election on behalf of his Tory association, who will select a new candidate.
Mr Conway’s prospective LibDem opponent called for a police investigation into payments to the MP’s sons.
Duncan Borrowman said the issue was “important enough, especially in the present climate, to warrant police investigation”.
A request for the names and salaries of MPs’ relatives who are paid for by the taxpayer to be published was blocked by the Speaker Michael Martin in 2006.
Information Commissioner Richard Thomas had been expected to rule there were no legitimate grounds for exempting the names, requested under the Freedom of Information Act.
But Mr Martin claimed such disclosure was likely to “prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs”.
Heather Brooke of anti-secrecy group Your Right To Know, which made the FoI request, said: “If MPs are to have any credibility with the public, they must disclose a full breakdown of all their expenses.”
29 January 2008
3. Article in Daily Mirror, published 31 January 2008
Tories in turmoil: Henry Conway enjoyed champagne party lifestyle
EXCLUSIVE: TORIES IN TURMOIL
Henry Conway enjoyed a champagne party lifestyle at college—funded by the £32,000 salary paid by his dad, it was revealed yesterday.
Friends were jealous of the big spending ex-public schoolboy as they struggled on meagre grants.
One woman who studied with him at Courtauld Institute of Art in London told the Mirror: “It is an absolute joke to say he was working in the House of Commons at the time.
“He never mentioned it once—he was too busy clubbing and drinking in bars every night.” Henry spent three years at the college and took a Masters degree. The friend added: “The work was intensive and it would have been almost impossible to have a demanding job for his dad and such a social life.
“He is the ultimate Hooray Henry. His favourite drinks were champagne and gin and tonic.
“Henry would spend money like water—it was champagne, champagne all the way.” She added: “Henry lived the lifestyles of the rich and famous and loved shocking people. He would wear a peacock feather in his hair, a leopardskin shirt or diamond choker.
“He modelled himself on Oscar Wilde and lived it to the limit. He would put on a cravat and flounce around making a show. He loved going to gay bars and hanging around in that sort of company.”
64 Mr Derek Conway MP
Another ex-student friend said he gave no hint he worked for his father. Art gallery head Miranda Appleby said: “He was constantly busy with his social life. I wonder if he’d have had any time to work for his dad.”
31 January 2008
4. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 11 February 2008
I am writing to invite your response to complaints I have received from Mr Duncan Borrowman about the arrangements you made in employing your son Mr Henry Conway as your research assistant.
I attach a copy of Mr Borrowman’s letter of 4 February and its attachments. You will see from Mr Borrowman’s letter that I asked him to provide sufficient evidence to merit at least a preliminary inquiry by me in respect of his complaints about your employment of Mrs Conway and Mr Henry Conway. He has withdrawn his complaint in respect of your employment of Mrs Conway. I consider, however, that I do need to make at least a preliminary inquiry of you on account of his complaint against you in respect of your employment of Mr Henry Conway.
In essence, Mr Borrowman complains that the payments you made to Mr Henry Conway from your Parliamentary allowances when you employed him as your research assistant were not justified by the work he undertook for you and that you therefore failed to meet the relevant requirements of the Code of Conduct and the Green Book.
You will be aware of the relevant provisions of the Code and the Green Book. The Code of Conduct for Members provides in paragraph 14:
“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.”
And in paragraph 15 as follows:
“Members shall at all times conduct themselves in a manner which will tend to maintain and strengthen the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of Parliament and never undertake any action which would bring the House of Commons, or its Members generally, into disrepute.”
Section 4 of the Book on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Pensions published in February 2001 provides in paragraph 4.1.2 as follows:
“The Office Costs Allowance (OCA) should be used to cover the normal expenses required to set up and run a parliamentary office, including the payment of secretarial and research assistance. To qualify for OCA, any expenditure must be incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the performance of parliamentary duties. This is a strict and long-established rule, approved by successive Speakers. You cannot therefore claim for expenditure that is personal or party-political. The allowance year is 1st April to 31st March.” and following the Fourth Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges for 2003-04 (Mr Iain Duncan Smith), paragraph 6.2.1 of the Green Book was revised in July 2004 to read as follows:
“Subject to the paragraphs which follow, all Members of Parliament may draw on the staffing allowance to pay their staff. 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
Mr Derek Conway MP 65
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 the light of this, I would be grateful for your comments on the complaint. In particular, it would be helpful if you could:
• let me have the contract of employment you provided to Henry Conway and the dates on which he was employed;
• let me have your records of the salary Henry Conway was paid, together with the bonuses and overtime payments he earned for each year of employment;
• let me have a statement of the reasons for the level of pay you decided on and the reasons for each of the bonuses and overtime payments you awarded, taking account (for pay) of your son’s qualifications and experience at the time and the guidance of the then DFA; (for the bonuses) of the justification you had for determining the level of bonuses he received; and (for overtime) the reasons for any award of overtime and the guidance on which this was based;
• let me have a full description of the hours Henry Conway worked and the working arrangements which were maintained both during his term-time and in his holiday period, together with any evidence or records you have to demonstrate them;
• a description of the work actually undertaken by Henry Conway, together with as much evidence as you can provide, both material and circumstantial, that he carried out these tasks.
When I have your response I may need to consult the Department of Resources, to whom I am copying this letter and Mr Borrowman’s letter, before deciding how to proceed.
I enclose a note setting out the procedures I follow for complaints. I am informing Mr Borrowman that I am seeking your response to his complaint.
If you would like a word about any of this, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address or give me a telephone call.
11 February 2008
5. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 11 March 2008
I hope that, following consideration of this submission, you will conclude that there is neither evidence nor substance to the complaint made by Mr. Borrowman in relation to the employment of my son Henry as a research assistant in 2001.
1. Perhaps it would be helpful if I responded to the points you raised in order.
2. Green Book paragraph 14: Henry’s appointment was in accordance with the Rules of the House as they existed at that time. In 2001 he was issued with a researcher’s pass to the parliamentary estate and he also registered with the Registrar of Members Interests, published on 13th February 2002 [WE 6]. Both of these actions declared his position in the public domain. At all times the payments made to him were within “the limits placed by the House”.
3. Green Book paragraph 15: Henry’s appointment was in accordance with Department of Finance guidance at that time. Though he is my son, as over 200 MPs employ family members this appointment was neither contrary to the Rules of the House nor was it disreputable.
4. Section 4, Book on Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances & Pensions: Henry was exclusively employed to support me in my parliamentary activities. His assistance to me was, categorically, neither personal nor party-political.
66 Mr Derek Conway MP
5. Employed to meet a genuine need: The employment term “research assistant” is commonly used in the House for staff members who are general assistants. In Henry’s case my requirement was for support in reviewing and summarising briefing material related to my general and foreign affairs interests but also those specifically related to London. I had been elected for a London Borough constituency but had previously no involvement with the area or the numerous agencies that work across the region.
6. In addition to this research function, Henry provided assistance in sorting incoming mail, support in arranging meeting rooms and entertaining visitors, taking telephone messages, stuffing envelopes, photocopying, collating responses to constituents with inserts, maintaining the Raise Again file of my forthcoming engagements, maintaining the Awaiting Reply file for outstanding matters, checking local newspapers for articles and photographs relating to me, photography and downloading and editing photographs, scrutiny of and deleting emails. Therefore his duties were a balance of matters that required some thought and others that were clerically based.
7. Able and (if necessary) qualified to do the job: There are no specific qualifications required for the position Henry held, however his intellectual capacity for the basic research required was evident as he was in his second year at the UK’s premier university college for his chosen subject. There were approximately three thousand applicants for forty-five undergraduate places. At school he had been a library assistant at the Vaughan Library undertaking research tasks and was chairman of the Old Speech Room Gallery Committee which involved researching exhibitions and preparing texts for catalogues.
8. If “able” is meant to imply availability rather than capacity, then it will be noted that his course was based at the Courtauld Institute of Art (part of the University of London) at Somerset House, which is three blocks and about ten minutes walk along the Embankment from the parliamentary estate. Press reports that he was at Cambridge University were untrue.
9. Geographically being at either the Westminster flat, parliament or college meant he was always within walking distance.
10. Henry’s second-year (2001–2) course terms were 1st October–12th December 2001, 9th January–20th March 2002 and 24th April–3rd July 2002 […] which is a total of 27 weeks, though not all had a seminar requirement. His autumn term consisted of three modules […] as did the spring term. This generated six hours of lectures each week.
11. In his final year (2002–3) this reduced to one option per term […] consisting of two lectures. During that academic year there was also a requirement to give two oral and two essay presentations. For his Master's, (2003–4) the lecture commitment was reduced further but dissertation preparation was obviously required.
12. Much has been made of the definition of “full-time student” and the recent Public Accounts Committee Tenth Report commented on the limited lecture commitment of arts courses. The Daily Mail article [WE 7], published on 28th February 2008 by Tom Rawstorne, quoted that an average of six hours a week was the norm. Antony King, professor of government at Essex University stated that during his extensive period in higher education, the lecture and essay commitment has reduced by at least 50% and I believe those who have been involved in considering the allegations against me have not updated their personal recollection of two or three decades ago with current practice.
13. I contend this shows that the concept of being a “full-time” student and consequently excluded from a capacity to do part-time work is as wrong in application to Henry as it would be to most humanities course students.
14. Actually doing the job: On the parliamentary estate I had one staff work station allocated to [my Commons secretary] plus my MP’s room. Henry would do what I required of him either at the flat, in my MP’s room or at [my Commons secretary’s] desk.
15. The statement of my constituency secretary [WE 8] affirms that she would speak to Henry when he was working from the flat, leaving messages for me and she knew he was sorting out the incoming mail specifically when Colette and I were away from London, and therefore the only person who could have done so, as he would send constituency based letters to her for attention. Secretary A [WE 9] recalls
Mr Derek Conway MP 67
seeing Henry at Colette’s desk undertaking various clerical duties […]. Since their statements, an MP told [my Commons secretary] on Friday that he had seen Henry frequently about the House and a member of the Refreshment Department staff recalled seeing Henry often in Portcullis House.
16. Given the media coverage of those who are not related to me during the previous case, I am sure you will understand why they do not wish to have their identities made public but their views are submitted to you in confidence to demonstrate that Henry was known to be assisting me at both locations.
17. Enclosed is a photograph [not reproduced here] taken of the Moroccan Ambassador and Henry, who is clearly wearing his parliamentary pass and the decor of the room in the background identifies it as the Inter-Parliamentary Room off Westminster Hall, prior to its refurbishment. He would assist me with visiting groups, setting up the meeting room, taking photographs, providing refreshments and helping to receive and escort guests.
18. [The Director General of the Resources Department] confirmed to me on 10th March 2008 that the House of Commons Commission in 2002 instructed that personal records should be kept for only the three years preceding the current year, except for those relating to pensions. I am being asked to produce records from up to seven years ago and I do not have them as I would not have kept a record of what hours Henry, or any other member of staff, spent at each location. Parliamentary officials, presumably from the Department of Resources, were quoted in the Daily Mail edition of 3rd March 2008 […] stating that destruction of documents was “routine”. The House required Members to clear all files and papers from the parliamentary estate when Dissolution took place for the 2005 General election, which post- dated Henry’s part-time employment.
19. I do not have a record of the summaries he prepared on the research I required and the work set out in paragraphs six and seven, by their nature, would not require a record to be kept of what was done.
20. Contract of Employment & Payments: A copy of Henry’s contract is at [WE 10]. He was employed from July 2001 to September 2004 a period of thirty-nine months.
21. Remuneration: The Director of Operations has confirmed that Henry started his employment before the current rules and standard contracts came into force but has also stated that all of the paperwork they have is in order.
22. He will brief you independently, but my understanding is that his salary of £9999.96pa was well within the pay scale of the Research/Parliamentary Assistant grade. From information supplied by the Department of Resources, I calculate his salary over thirty-nine months to have been £28,000, with a further £3,588 in three bonus payments and an £800 overtime payment. In total a remuneration of £32,388.
23. Bonus payments are commonly made to Members’ staff and in Henry’s case the annual bonus payments were within the 15% annual maximum. It will be noted that there had been no annual salary up-rating. I do not have a record of the details of the overtime payment but as it was a one-off payment, rather than a regular occurrence, indicates that it was specifically related to extra hours at the time.
24. On a part-time basis, over thirty-nine months, the grade maximum would have been £47,698.62 in salary (Henry’s was 42% below that figure) and £7,154.79 permitted bonus (Henry’s was 49% below that figure) which is a combined remuneration maximum of £54,853.41, so Henry’s total remuneration at £32,388 was 41% below the permitted grade maximum.
25. I considered the level of remuneration to be reasonable, well within the maximum permitted by the guidelines of the Department at the time and did not contravene any known or extant rule of the House.
26. Hours worked: To suit my work-style, Henry would do what was required of him to fulfil eighteen hours at three locations: the flat, my MP’s room at the House, or [my Commons secretary’s] desk. The hours varied but as his lecture commitment was minimal this was not a difficulty. Often [my Commons secretary] would go into the Commons quite early and I would work from the flat during the morning. Henry would work alongside me for a couple of hours, or midmorning walk up to the Commons depending on what needed doing and where. He would frequently work late afternoon for an hour or so. Over the week there was no challenge in being available for and in filling the necessary hours on the
68 Mr Derek Conway MP
various tasks I required.
27. Inevitably on some days there would be less to do than others, but also it was not a matter of Monday to Fridays, as some work was required on a Saturday or Sunday, which is how I operated. This is not a five- day week occupation and having Henry available on days other than usual working days suited me. I did not keep and would not in any event have retained from up to seven years ago, time-sheets for Henry or anyone else and very much doubt that any other Member has such records from so long ago.
28. Work actually undertaken: In my response earlier in this submission on “employed to meet a genuine need”, I set out the tasks I required of Henry and as the House authorities do not retain such records pre- 2004 I would be surprised to learn if any MP keeps a schedule of such routine activities. I understand that the evidence of either my wife or I would be viewed as qualified, but various people had observed Henry about the parliamentary estate or had contact with him at the flat. Asking them to provide other than a generalised recollection or even a schedule of exactly when and what he was doing between four and seven years ago would be neither realistic nor reasonable.
29. Henry had a job to do, was not over-paid to do it and fulfilled the tasks required to my satisfaction. No rules of the House were broken in employing him, others had contact with him, his appointment was published and publicly available.
30. The vitriol Henry has been subjected to in the national media focussed on his sexuality and what the homophobic Daily Mail frequently described as his exotic lifestyle. What Henry does now and how he styles himself should be of no concern to anyone, however the photograph of him assisting at a meeting in parliament shows clearly that when on duty he dressed appropriately and conducted himself with dignity.
31. To propagate this vilification of my sons’ allegedly hedonistic lifestyle, one of the larger photographs showed what the newspaper titled “the Conway boys on the town” purporting to be Henry and Freddie, dressed in eighteenth century clothes, on an exotic-lifestyle outing. In fact it was a Georgian Society event and my younger son Freddie was actually not the other person in the picture. Such has been the media’s twisting of the truth that even Mr. Borrowman refers to this as Henry’s “much publicised hectic social life”.
32. Another report of one of Henry’s events at the Mahiki night-club said that Henry and Freddie were “out on the town”, when for Henry it was a working night and Freddie was at home recovering from a serious spinal operation which rendered him physically incapable of visiting a night-club.
33. The premature end to my parliamentary career, and the irretrievable damage to my reputation, after thirty years in elected Office, is a disproportionate punishment. I hope you will conclude that the witch-hunt to which my family and I have been subjected has gone far enough and that the complaint is not upheld.
11 March 2008
6. Mr Henry Conway’s entry in the Register of Interests of Members’ Secretaries and Research Assistants, 13 February 2002
STAFF MEMBER OTHER RELEVANT GAINFUL OCCUPATION (ie SPONSOR) OR BENEFIT
Henry CONWAY Derek Conway None.
13 February 2002
7. Article in Daily Mail, 21 February 2008
A degree of betrayal: how too few lectures and massive debts are forcing a quarter of students to drop out
Mr Derek Conway MP 69
Two months into the first term of her three-year degree course in photography, Megan Martin suddenly realised she was wasting her time.
“I was in the student bar with a load of friends and we were all downing vodka shots,” says Megan, now 22.
“They cost only £2 a go, but I remember thinking they were costing a lot more than that.
“I’d taken out a £4,000 loan to cover the first term’s living expenses and the £1,500-a-year tuition costs, but had worked out that by the time I had finished the course I'd have roughly £20,000 worth of debt.
“And for what? Six hours of lectures a week and the privilege of getting drunk on cheap alcohol every night of the week.”
Incredible though may it seem, almost one in four students follows in Megan’s footsteps and drops out of their university course.
For each of the 100,000 young people that statistic covers there is a story of dashed hopes and dreams.
But beyond the personal tragedies, there lies an extraordinary cost to the British taxpayer.
According to a hard-hitting report published this week, the Government has spent nearly £800million of public money since 2000 trying to persuade students to complete their studies.
The result? A less than one percentage point improvement in the drop-out rate.
Add to that bill the £450 million these early leavers cost the nation in wasted tuition fees and subsidised loans and is it any wonder that questions are being asked as to whether this colossal sum couldn’t be spent more wisely.
More teachers for primary schools and smaller classes?
A drive to improve the nation’s literacy and numeracy skills? A raft of new schools?
Sound suggestions, but don’t bank on them happening any time soon.
As prime minister, Tony Blair pledged to open up university to all-comers.
He vowed that, by 2010, half of all teenagers would be in higher education. The baton has been taken up by Gordon Brown.
The figure is now 43 per cent and everything possible is being done to hit the target.
The trouble is that the strain of this massive expansion would appear to be pushing the system to breaking point.
Academics, parents and students are all shocked at what they say are the declining standards of higher education.
Universities, they say, are becoming little more than “factories” where degrees are dumbed down and the ever-increasing student population receives less and less tuition.
Put bluntly, there's a sense that the undergraduates of 21st-century Britain are being short-changed—which really means something when they are being charged tuition fees of £3,000 a year.
This systemic failure is pinpointed in the new report into drop-out rates by the House of Commons’ influential Public Accounts Committee.
“We can have as many Government programmes as we like, but we all know that what makes a difference is the human touch,” says Tory MP Edward Leigh, the committee’s chairman.
70 Mr Derek Conway MP
“Students often start a course and find it is more difficult than they thought and is not quite what they expected.
“What makes a difference is personal contact with the tutor.
“Many students, particularly on arts courses, go through university with little or no personal contact with their tutors.
“All the tutor’s funding is based on what books they are writing and their research programmes.
“Often the seminars are large—maybe up to 15 people. These things make a difference.”
According to the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), a record number of students started university courses in 2007.
The total of 413,430 was an increase of 22,540 on the previous year and was hailed as a significant achievement, given concerns that the introduction of tuition fees might have been off-putting.
“These figures are encouraging news for the higher education sector and demonstrate that students’ desire for a university education has not diminished,” says UCAS chief executive Anthony McClaran.
Fine words, but the big question is whether the universities are capable of delivering a standard of education and type of degree that is desirable.
An examination of the drop-out rates would suggest not and raises serious questions about the wisdom of the Utopian university dream.
For starters, retention rates are worse among the former polytechnics, which are most likely to recruit students from “non-traditional backgrounds.
School leavers who in the past would have gone straight into a job are encouraged by target-obsessed school heads to ignore their academic weaknesses and sign up to a course—any course.
They can do so thanks to the dumbing down that has seen the inflation of A-level grades and the lowering of admissions criteria.
As a result, just about anyone can go to university, but how long they stay is another matter.
The figures indicate that for many the experience is unhappy and that dropping out becomes their only option.
A range of factors will inform such a decision, but there are several major reasons.
First, students may be academically unable to cope: drop-out rates are highest among those with the lowest A- level grades.
The rate for Derby University, for instance, is 25 per cent; Cambridge, by contrast, is 1 per cent.
Those least well-equipped to cope with the demands of academia struggle the most.
Maths, computer science and engineering are particularly affected, with many students quitting because they lack the basic numeracy skills.
Many others find themselves becoming disillusioned. In a bid to make university more “attractive”, there has been a huge growth in so-called soft courses such as media studies, human rights and ethnicity.
They may sound interesting, but the realisation slowly dawns on students that they're not getting much bang for their not inconsiderable bucks.
It all comes back to the question of student-to-staff contact. Clearly, this new breed of undergraduates needs looking after.
Mr Derek Conway MP 71
But the sad truth is that teaching time and learning time is being squeezed hard.
A report published six months ago shows that our undergraduates spend far less time studying than their European counterparts.
Students typically receive an average 14 hours of tuition a week—but some see their tutors only two or three times a term - and spend 12 to 13 hours in private study, according to the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI).
This 26-hour workload compares unfavourably with European figures of 41 hours in Portugal, 35 in France, 34 in Germany and 30-plus in other countries.
Our brightest students might be able to cope with the lack of tuition, but when the intake has been widened to include less able individuals, it spells disaster and a betrayal of those the Government claims it wants to help up the academic ladder.
Lee Shaw, who is in his third year at Liverpool John Moores University, comes from a “non-traditional” background.
The 23-year-old son of a printer from Nottingham, he says that if he had his time again he wouldn't waste it on media and cultural studies with marketing.
“I left school at 16 and started doing an apprenticeship in the motor trade,” he says.
“I did enjoy that, but the money was so poor I decided to get out of it.
“I went back to college and did a BTEC in media production that taught me about photography, film-making and marketing. I enjoyed it and decided I'd go on to university.
“I didn’t just want to go there and have a doss; I wanted to do something that would help me get a job at the end of it, maybe as an advertising copy-writer.”
However, his experience has not been good. He has funded himself by working nights in a warehouse, but even so he has still racked up debts of £15,000.
For that he receives an average seven hours of “contact time” a week during term.
The vast majority of this is spent in lectures of up to 100 people, with as little as two hours a week in seminar groups of between five and 20 students.
So far, he has not had to produce a single piece of work this term.
On average, he has to write just three essays a term. Is he getting value for money?
“No way,” he says. “I would expect more tuition and a rigid structure.
“It is disheartening because you don’t get a lot of feedback when you do essays. If the tutors write anything at all, often you can hardly read it. I feel dissatisfied.”
“Overall, the impression I get, and this is reinforced by people on other courses, is that the university likes to think it is doing a public service.
"But it isn’t—we are paying for it. They are not doing us a favour; they seem to forget people are making a big commitment and spending a hell of a lot of money to be there.”
Declining contact time between students and their tutors is becoming a major issue. The universities try to dismiss it, saying it is about “quality” time, not “quantity” time. But that does not convince many academics.
Anthony King, professor of government at Essex University, has taught at British universities for four decades.
72 Mr Derek Conway MP
“I am seriously worried that students in many subjects are not being taught enough. The main reason is that there are not enough teachers,” he says.
“The staff-to-student ratio has deteriorated enormously over the past 20 years to the point where a lot of universities have reduced the amount of work undergraduates are required to do and reduced the number of classes offered.
“Some universities are scarcely teaching their students at all. The amount of contact time they have and the number of lectures they are required to attend each week have reached vanishing point.”
But surely university isn’t about spoon-feeding students; it’s about occasional guidance and self- enlightenment.
“That is rubbish,” he says. “Students were never in a position to teach themselves and as the number has gone up enormously, the proportion of students able to teach themselves has declined.
“Courses that used to have two lectures a week now have one and the amount of time teachers can devote to individual students has markedly decreased.
"When I first came to my university, students took five courses in my department and were expected to write five essays for each, a total of 25.
“Today, the number of courses has been reduced to four and the number of essays to three, which means the number of essays they have to write each year has been reduced by more than 50 per cent.
“That is not because anyone wants to do it or because we have got lazy, it is because we can’t cope.”
Prof King is particularly concerned that this decline in contact time has not been recognised. Universities are in competition with one another for students, so they are reluctant to admit the extent of the cutbacks.
In a bid to shine a light on this hidden problem, a website was set up last year called williseemytutor.com—its aim was to highlight staff-student ratios (SSRs) at different universities and in various courses.
One of its founders, a university academic who asked not to be named for fear that he would lose his job, said SSRs are well publicised in the U.S. and are a crucial tool in helping students decide where and what they would study.
“In terms of engaging with the best minds and interrogating the subject, you need regular contact with your tutor.
“An SSR gives an indication of where you will be able to get that,” he says.
The website was up and running for seven months, but is now out of action. Initially, there were threats of legal action from the universities it criticised.
Then the Higher Education Statistics Agency, a body charged by the Government with collecting data, refused to sell it the information it needed to produce its figures—effectively forcing its closure.
And so the battlelines are being drawn between students—the paying customers—and the universities.
One education lawyer is advocating that disgruntled undergraduates should launch class actions against the universities to sue for the return of tuition fees.
This failure to provide value for money is something that Nick Wilton, 21, a second-year film studies student at a university in the South of England, feels particularly strongly about.
He receives nine hours of contact time with his tutors a week: five hours of seminars and four hours of lectures.
“Other than that, it is all about what they call virtual learning—we are expected to go online and access lectures our tutors have pre-recorded,” he says.
Mr Derek Conway MP 73
“The next time you see the tutor you are supposed to ask them questions about what you have seen.
“I guess they do that because they don't have enough time to do it the normal way.”
Nick, who will finish his studies in debt to the tune of £20,000, feels there should be more direct teaching.
“I am disillusioned, to be honest,” he says. “I came to university to learn. I think more students should wake up and realise what's going on. They get so caught up in the whole social thing of being away from home and having a good time that they're failing to demand what’s due to them.
“Instead, they’re happy just to do the little work they’re given and then pick up their degree at the end. I think there should be more to it than that.”
His words chime loudly with Megan Martin, who dropped out of Bournemouth Arts Institute having decided a degree in photography wasn’t going to get her a job—just a hangover.
Today, she works in public relations for one of Britain’s largest companies and earns £20,000 a year, but she’s one of the lucky few.
“People said I’d never get the job I wanted without a degree, but I was determined to prove them wrong,” she says.
“I was an A-grade student with my GCSEs and A-levels and just because I have’'t got a degree doesn’t mean I am less capable of doing a job than someone who has graduated.
“Degrees have become ten a penny and unless you want to be a doctor or lawyer, all they prove is that you've studied something to a certain level.
“I’ve got graduate friends who have yet to find jobs. The longer they are out of work, the greater the long-term cost to them.”
Precisely. You can’t help but feel that these students have been badly betrayed by the Government.
21 February 2008
8. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary, 25 February 2008
Since 2002 I have been Derek Conway’s Constituency Secretary based in Sidcup.
Mr. Conway’s working pattern varied enormously, so when I had to call him I would telephone his Commons office or Colette first and then his Westminster apartment if he was working from that location. On numerous occasions I would speak to Henry who would take the calls and messages for Derek.
I know that Henry had a role in sorting out incoming mail because when Derek or Colette were in the constituency or away from London, Henry would sift out constituency-based letters and send them to me for attention.
I did not keep a record of my contact with Henry and, as it was quite a long time ago, could not accurately give specific days or times but I can state that I had frequent contact with Henry between 2002 and 2004.
25 February 2008
9. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary A, 20 February 2008
I have worked at the House of Commons as a Personal Assistant to a number of Members for many years and, from 2001, for a period of time I was based in [the shared secretaries’ room] where Colette Conway also had a desk.
74 Mr Derek Conway MP
I recall that Henry used to set at that desk to perform functions such as opening and sorting the mail and clerical duties of some sort, but of course I did not scrutinise his actual work, nor would I have kept a record of dates and times when this was done.
It may also be of interest to know that Henry would also join us from time to time for lunch in the cafeteria.
It was not a daily routine but it did occur often and, as it was several years ago, I would not accurately be able to recall how frequently.
20 February 2008
10. Contract of Employment for Mr Henry Conway, 1 July 2001
STATEMENT OF MAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
NEW EMPLOYEE
This statement, which is issued in accordance with Section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, sets out particulars of the main terms and conditions on which I Derek Conway Member of Parliament for Old Bexley & Sidcup offer Henry Charles Conway employment as a Research Assistant as of 1st July 2001.
COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUITY
Your employment with me will begin on 1st July 2001. Your duties initially will be those set out in the agreed Job Description. No employment with a previous employer will count as continuous employment for the purposes of this new employment.
TRIAL PERIOD
This first 3 months of your employment will be on a trial basis. If during the trial period your work or attendance or conduct is not of an acceptable standard, your appointment may be terminated in accordance with the notice provisions set out below.
PAY
Your salary of eight thousand pounds per annum will be paid monthly in arrears through the Fees Office. Payment will also continue during any Dissolution of Parliament. All bona fide expenses necessarily incurred on behalf of your employer in your employment will be reimbursed on production of necessary receipts.
HOURS OF WORK
Your normal working week will be 18 hours. Your hours of duty may however be variable and will depend upon my parliamentary workload.
ADDITIONAL HOURS
Some evening and weekend work may be required. If you are asked to work additional hours and time off in lieu cannot be granted, overtime will be paid. This will be your usual hourly rate of pay until you exceed the part time conditioned hours for the job (18 hours net). After this you will be paid at a rate of time and a half.
It is unlikely that any additional hours will have to be worked at short notice. I will however, give you as much notice as I possibly can.
The Working Time Regulations 1998 limit the working week to forty-eight hours, normally averaged over seventeen weeks. If you consider that you are working at or near this limit you should tell me. I may then ask you to sign an agreement to opt out of the 48 hours limit and/or to monitor your working hours.
PLACE OF WORK
Mr Derek Conway MP 75
The main location of your work will be my Parliamentary office. However you may, on occasions, be required to work at other locations either in Westminster or within the constituency.
HOLIDAYS
Your holiday entitlement in any full year will be fifteen working days to be taken at mutually convenient dates. Your holiday year will commence on your first day of employment with me. If you serve only part of a year, your entitlement will be in direct proportion to your service during that year, any fractions being rounded to the nearest day. You will be entitled to all Public Holidays on full pay.
INCAPACITY FOR WORK
If you are unable to work for any reason whatsoever you must inform me or arrange for someone else to inform me if you are unable to do this yourself, as soon as possible on the first day of absence, as to the reason for your absence and if possible when you hope to return to work.
EVIDENCE OF INCAPACITY
If you are absent for seven working days or less you should, on your return to work, let me have confirmation in writing giving the first and last day of sickness as well as the reason for absence.
If your sickness absence continues for more than seven days you should obtain a medical certificate from your doctor and forward it to me without delay. Further certificates should be submitted each week for as long as the illness lasts. You should also contact me, or arrange for me to be contacted, to tell me of your progress at least every fortnight if you are off sick for the medium or long term.
SICK PAY
Subject to the above procedure, you will receive full pay (inclusive of Statutory Sick Pay) up to a maximum of one week's paid sick leave for every four weeks worked.
CARING LEAVE
You will have the right to a reasonable period of time off work (unpaid) to deal with an emergency involving a dependant. You can take caring leave if it is needed in any of the following circumstances:
• To provide assistance if a dependant falls ill, gives birth, is assaulted or injured. • To make arrangements to provide care for a dependant who is ill or injured • On the death of a dependant. • To deal with an unexpected disruption in care arrangements. • To deal with an incident involving your child while he/she is in school. • On adoption.
TIME OFF FOR PUBLIC DUTIES
Time off for public duties will be available in line with the Employment Rights Act 1996. The amount of time off will depend on the nature of the duties. If you are considering undertaking such duties you should first discuss this with me.
PENSION PROVISION
The Fees Office will contribute from public funds an amount not exceeding 10% of your annual rate of salary to an approved pension scheme. You should arrange this direct with the Life Assurance Office or other institution selected. You must tell the Fees Office before you enter into any such arrangement.
Additionally you have the right to make further contributions which will be deducted from your salary by the Fees Office on request.
SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS ACT 1975
76 Mr Derek Conway MP
A contracting out certificate under the Social Security Pensions Act is not in force for this employment. This means that you will not be contracted out of the State earnings related pension scheme but will have the option of participating in the above pension scheme in addition.
TRADE UNION MEMBERSHIP
You have the right to be a member of a trade union.
GRIEVANCES
If any grievance should arise about your employment, I shall require this to be given in writing.
DISCIPLINE
Disciplinary issues will be dealt with in accordance with the principles set out in the ACAS Code of Practice and the ACAS advisory handbook—Discipline at Work (copy available from the Fees Office). The procedures set out below will not apply during your trial period.
DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
The procedure is designed to establish the facts quickly and to deal with disciplinary issues. No disciplinary action will be taken until the matter has been fully investigated. At every stage you will have the opportunity to state your case and be represented, if you wish, at the hearings by a trade union representative, if appropriate or by a fellow employee.
You have the right to appeal against any disciplinary penalty. (It should be noted that the procedure could start at any of the stages described below, dependent on the seriousness of the matter).
THE PROCEDURE
This is as follows:
Stage 1—Oral warning If your conduct or performance is unsatisfactory, you will be given an ORAL WARNING that will be recorded. The warning will be disregarded after 6 months satisfactory service.
Stage 2—Written warning If your offence is serious, if there is no improvement in your standards, or if a further offence occurs, you will be given a WRITTEN WARNING which will include the reason for the warning and a note that, if there is no improvement after 3 months a final written warning will be given. The warning will be disregarded after 12 months satisfactory service.
Stage 3—Final written warning If your conduct or performance is still unsatisfactory a FINAL WRITTEN WARNING will be given making it clear that any recurrence of the offence or other serious misconduct within a period of 3 months will result in dismissal.
Stage 4—Dismissal You will be dismissed if there is no satisfactory improvement or if further serious misconduct occurs after a final warning. You will also be dismissed if after investigation, it is confirmed that you have committed gross misconduct. This includes the following offences. (The list is not exhaustive). theft, damage to property, fraud, incapacity for work from being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, physical assault and gross insubordination.
Mr Derek Conway MP 77
While alleged gross misconduct is being investigated you may be suspended, on full or half pay or without pay, depending on the circumstances. Any decision to suspend on half pay or no pay will be reviewed every month. Any decision to dismiss will be taken after a full investigation and hearing.
Appeals
If you wish me to reconsider any disciplinary decision, you must submit your case in writing within 5 working days.
WORKING FOR ANOTHER EMPLOYER
If at any time during this employment, you work for another employer, you must seek permission from me beforehand. This is to ensure that you receive your statutory entitlements relating to work and rest periods.
DUTY OF CONFIDENTIALITY
The contractual relationship between my employees and me is based on trust. During the course of your employment, you must not use, to the detriment of my Office, any confidential information that has been acquired by you in the course of your employment, or disclose any such confidential information to a third party without my authorisation. Any breach of this trust may lead to disciplinary action.
NOTICE
The amount of notice you will be entitled to receive from me is one month. The amount of notice I would require you to give me is a minimum of one month.
Where agreed between the parties, pay in lieu of notice may be made.
ACCEPTANCE
If this offer is acceptable to you, will you please sign and return this copy of the contract.
SIGNED
Derek Conway TD MP 1.7.01
Henry Charles Conway 1st July 2001
11. Job Description for Mr Henry Conway, 1 July 2001
JOB DESCRIPTION
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.
78 Mr Derek Conway MP
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.
Signed Henry Charles Conway Signed Derek Conway TD MP
1.7.01 1.7.01
12. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 12 March 2008
Thank you for your letter of 11 March responding to mine of 11 February with the complaint about the arrangements you made in employing your son Mr Henry Conway as your research assistant.
I was grateful to you for providing me with the letter when we met on 11 March and to have your explanation of your choice of material for inclusion in your annexes.
I am, as you expected, showing your letter to the Department of Resources and consulting them about the arrangements you made for Mr Henry Conway’s employment.
In the meantime, it would be very helpful to me if you could let me have a little further information in the following areas: could you give me a fuller explanation of the research aspects which Henry undertook for you? You refer to summarising briefing material on foreign affairs, general affairs and on London. I appreciate that this is all now some years ago, and have noted your point about the retention of records, but it would be very helpful if you could tell me what sort of briefing Henry provided and some idea of its frequency; could you give me some idea of what proportion of Henry’s time was spent on these research elements— summarising briefing material—and what proportion was spent on the other duties referred to in your letter; could you let me know if there was any difference in the hours worked by Henry between term time and holidays, and between when the House was sitting and in the recesses? If so, broadly what were the hours worked when the House was sitting (and in term time) and what were the overall hours worked in the recesses; can you give me any help on what the bonuses were paid for? the overtime payment was, as you say, a one-off payment relating to extra hours worked at the time. I assume, therefore, that there must have been particular and unusual pressures at that time, and would be grateful if you could give me some idea, if you can, what those circumstances were.
I would be most grateful for your continued help with this matter.
Mr Derek Conway MP 79
12 March 2008
13. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 31 March 2008
Thank you for your letter of 12th March, I have reflected further upon the additional information you request.
With regard to research services, I doubt if my needs were very different from most Members. Whilst the House Library offers a form of research support, the response time is not immediate, the quantity of information often much more than required and not necessarily in the format which suited me. They do not offer a précis service for incoming briefings.
Henry would prepare briefings in the form of edited extracts from a variety of sources on the subjects I designated. These related to my specific interests in foreign affairs and connected to the various positions I held as an officer in a number of all-party bi-lateral country groups, the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Group and as Treasurer of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The format I required was a summary of the country briefing which would include general population, economic, political and commercial background. This would also include details of the diplomatic representation in London and in the capital of the country both for the UK and the country concerned.
There are literally hundreds of quasi-governmental bodies, businesses, voluntary groups and charitable organisations covering London-wide issues and a large proportion were keen to brief me as a London Borough MP. For example, bodies such as the Local Government Association, the Office of the Mayor of London and the National Audit Office produce numerous reports and briefings which were submitted.
Those thought likely to be of interest would be passed to Henry and he would read through them and talk me through any salient points or produce a précis so that I would not have to read the entire document.
Henry’s previous researcher experience, to which I referred in my letter of 11th March, had been good training for him and I considered this a service which I required was of value to my work and which he conducted effectively and diligently.
At this distance in time it is very difficult to give a precise estimation of the time taken to do this. The preparation of the foreign briefings and the analysis and précis of the domestic reports would have been about half of his work-load and would occur several times a week. I think it not unreasonable to contend that the research, and other duties I previously set out in my response of 11th March, would occupy him for at least three hours each day.
Please bear in mind that Henry’s was not a Monday to Friday requirement and he would frequently help me at weekends too.
However, the demand did vary. For example in the latter part of July and August the need for foreign affairs research and briefing was less than in other months. At such time other demands increased, such as sorting the mail, for I would be away from London more often during this period.
Though there was a variation in the time needed, this was not caused by his university course which had a minimal fixed demand upon his time and was geographically nearby. It related more to my personal commitments and location. The Recesses were also a factor in the variation but I believe this experience is not dissimilar from that experienced by most MPs as evidently the House is quieter during times of Recess.
I understand the point you are seeking to establish in paragraph 3, however whether a relation or not, the required contractual arrangement for all Members’ staff means that even at quieter periods they are still retained, unlike the old dock-workers scheme of laying off and applying daily-hire to suit demand.
80 Mr Derek Conway MP
With regard to bonus payments, the House authorities issued very limited guidance at that time, simply instructing that they should be made within the budgets available and not exceed 15% of gross annual salary. The Committee on Standards & Privileges, in the Fourth Report of Session 2007–08 on page 10 (paragraph 28), observes “that all bonuses for staff authorised by Mr. Conway in the previous three years were within the permitted level”, which covered Henry’s period of employment1.
In my response to you of 11th March, paragraph 24, I set out that there had been no annual salary uprating. I considered these bonus awards to be a combination of that factor and because I was very pleased with the work Henry carried out for me and his willingness to assist me on days and at times out of the usual working week. In this assessment I see no breach of the rules of the House or the extant guidance of the Department.
The over-time payment was a one-off as such and at the time there were two specific requirements I had of Henry, which were additional to his usual duties. Over the years I had acquired over thirty large storage cartons of Official Reports (Hansard) and Statutes some of which had been water-damaged and I needed the damaged books sorted out and for the remainder I had him ascertain where my contributions in the House were recorded so that they could be safely stored. This was a dirty and time consuming process.
In addition I had about four filing cabinets of past constituency cases and papers which I considered unnecessary to retain and several boxes of similar papers handed on from my predecessor. Henry was asked to sort through these, shred unwanted reports and go through those he thought should be retained with me.
However, at this distance in time I cannot recall exactly how many hours were involved but it was a useful task.
I hope the above paragraphs have satisfactorily addressed the items you raised with me. This level of scrutiny is quite uncommon for my colleagues and I very much doubt if more than a handful of MPs could account for the activities of their staff on an hourly basis going back over seven years ago and re-iterate my observation in paragraph 34 of my last letter.
31 March 2008
14. Letter to the Acting Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 12 March 2008
I would welcome your help with a complaint I have received against Mr Derek Conway in respect of the arrangements for the employment of his son, Mr Henry Conway, between July 2001 and September 2004.
I attach a copy of the letter from the complainant of 4 February; my letter to Mr Conway of 11 February; and Mr Conway’s response of 11 March. I have not included all the attachments to Mr Conway’s letter, but have included [WE 10] which appears to be Henry Conway’s contract of employment as a research assistant.
I would welcome any comments you wish to make about the arrangements which Mr Derek Conway made at the time for the employment of his research assistant. That might include the nature of the contract, including the job description; the terms of the remuneration, including bonuses and overtime; and any procedures at the time which the Department had for checking the contracts for Members’ staff.
I would also be grateful for some factual material as follows:
a) information about the range of posts and associated salary scales available to Members wishing to employ staff in 2001;
b) information about the range of salary which the Department suggested for research assistants in each of the years from 2001 to 2004, including any guidance about how a Member decided where on the range the salary should be placed;
1 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 280
Mr Derek Conway MP 81
c) information about the actual salary paid to Mr Henry Conway in each of the three years in question—including the full-time equivalent for each of the years;
d) information about the bonuses actually paid to Mr Henry Conway – in particular the date the bonus was paid and the size of each bonus, and what procedure the Department followed before paying out such bonuses;
e) information about the actual overtime payments paid to Mr Henry Conway, with dates, and an explanation on any procedures the Department followed for meeting overtime requests from Members.
I would be very grateful for your help with these matters.
12 March 2008
15. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 9 April 2008
Thank you for your letters of 12 March and 7 April to [the Acting Director of Operations] concerning the complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP from Mr Duncan Borrowman. I have retained responsibility for this case for the time being.
You have asked a number of questions and also requested general comments about the arrangements for the employment of Mr Conway’s son, Henry. I address these matters below.
An important fact in this case is that Henry’s employment dates from 1 July 2001, which was before the introduction of the requirements now placed upon Members in respect of the employment of staff and before the guidance on pay rates was issued. A copy of Henry’s contract is at Annex A [WE 10]. The subsequent instruction to place Henry on the payroll was signed on the 27 November 2001 [WE 18]. The first payment to Henry was therefore made in December 2001 and included an arrears payment covering the period 1 July to 30 November.
The Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB) carries out a triennial review of Parliamentary pay and allowances. Its 2001 report (Cm 4997) was seminal in that it recommended a more generous system of allowances which would enable Members to employ three staff from a new Staffing Allowance and to pay separately for office costs from an Incidental Expenses Provision (IEP). These two allowances almost doubled the amount available to Members for these services from the then Office Costs Allowance (OCA).
The House debated the SSRB report on 5 July 2001 and the Staffing Allowance became available to Members with immediate effect. However, it was some 2-3 months before full guidance was issued by the then Department of Finance and Administration on job descriptions and associated salary levels.
Henry Conway was appointed on 1 July 2001 and he and Mr Derek Conway both signed his contract of employment on that day. At that date the rules and guidance in the Green Book were substantially different from now and were principally concerned with payment transactions. The main ‘rule’ appeared to be the necessity for a contract of employment to be lodged with the then Fees Office. I enclose at Annex B a copy of the relevant pages of the February 2001 edition of the Green Book.
So, as you can see, the current framework of rules and guidance involving standard contracts, job descriptions and associated pay ranges was absent at the time of Henry’s appointment. It was always likely that new arrangements, foreshadowed in the SSRB report, would come into force following the 5 July debate, but the precise nature of these could not be readily predicted nor the timing.
Henry Conway’s employment contract largely followed the model recommended by the Department for use by Members. The form of contract then was not mandatory as it is now. His salary on appointment payable from the OCA was £8,000pa, a full time rate of £16,667pa. Henry was a research assistant and the London pay range for such posts, first issued in autumn 2001, was £15,000–£26,500pa.
82 Mr Derek Conway MP
I enclose at Annex C [WE 16] a schedule of payments to Henry Conway during his employment by Mr Derek Conway, until the termination of his employment in October 2004. Perhaps, the most noteworthy aspects of this schedule are
the £2,000pa pay increase authorised in March 2003 and backdated to April 2002; and
the bonus and overtime payments authorised in March 2004.
I should make clear that all payments to Henry Conway were within the rules set out in the Green Book, including later editions based on the requirements of the new Staffing Allowance. In respect of (i) above, Henry’s salary was raised to an fte rate of £20,833 and it was not increased again during the rest of his employment. The salary guidance available in March 2003 was effectively silent on the question of applying annual pay increases for Members’ staff, as was Henry’s own contract. The pay ranges themselves were then, as now, increased each year by the relevant Average Earnings Index figure.
In respect of (ii) above, the facts are that Mr Derek Conway requested £2,000 net to be paid to Henry. This was subsequently clarified by Mr Conway to be £1,500 bonus and £829 overtime (both gross payment figures). As in all such cases we acted on the Member’s instruction, subject only to the 15% bonus cap being properly applied.
Please let me know if you need any more information.
9 April 2008
16. Schedule of payments to Mr Henry Conway
Derek Conway MP Staff history
Henry Conway Start Date 1/7/01 Employed as a Research Assistant. Start date was prior to introduction of standard job descriptions and pay ranges. Contract for 18 hrs per week
Fina Salary Full-Time Salary level Comment Request for action ncial range for equivalent for the Year Research salary relevant Assistant based on financial (London)* 37.5 hours year net 2001 £15,000 to £16,667 £8,000 Employed Form 'A' received dated 27 /02 £26,500 before pay November 2001. Salary rates backdate to 1 July 2001 £1,200 15% Bonus Letter dated 11 February paid Feb 2002 2002 2002 £15,495 to £20,833 £10,000 Salary Letter dated 9 March 2003. /03 £27,375 increased and backdated to April 2002 paid in March 2003 £1,188 15% Bonus Letter dated 9 March 2003. requested. Insufficient funds reduced to amount shown, paid March 2003 2003 £16,068 to £20,833 £10,000 No increase /04 £28,388
Mr Derek Conway MP 83
£1,499.99 15% Bonus Letter dated 4 March 2004 paid March 2004 £829.33 Overtime for Letter of 15 March 2004 additional duties (paid in April 2004) 2004 £16,614 to £20,833 £10,000 No increase Letter dated 4 September /05 £29,353 2004 Ceased 01 October 2004 * The minimum of the range is the recommended starting pay for London based staff.
17. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 15 April 2008
Thank you for your letter of 10 April.
Please find enclosed copies of the documents you requested. For the record I would add that Members’ staff files in the Department are kept for 3+1 years after the date of termination of employment. The entire file is then destroyed. As Henry Conway’s last day of employment was 1 October 2004, his file would have been destroyed about now, but it has been retained pending the conclusion of your investigation.
Please let me know if you require any further information.
15 April 2008
84 Mr Derek Conway MP
18. Form ‘A’ (Secretarial Salaries), 27 November 2001
Mr Derek Conway MP 85
19. Letter to the Fees Office from Mr Derek Conway MP, 11 February 2002
Please arrange to pay to Henry Conway, payroll reference […], the sum of £1,200 representing 15% of annual salary within the bonus terms set by the House for 2001/2.
11 February 2002
20. Letter to the Fees Office from Mr Derek Conway MP, 9 March 2003
Following our conversation I would be grateful if you could arrange for the following payment to Mr H C Conway, payroll reference […].
From 1st April 2002-31st March 2003 the sum of £2,000 to be paid in the March salary payment.
From 1st April 2003 the basic salary to be at £10,000.
The bonus for 2002-3 to be at a maximum of 15% but the remaining budget may not be adequate to cover this and statutory payments and the percentage to be adjusted accordingly and the undersigned advised.
Thank you for your assistance.
9 March 2003
21. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 4 March 2004
From my Staffing Allowance Budget please arrange to pay Henry Conway, reference […], the sum of two thousand pounds net, in addition to the monthly salary.
Please advise me of the grossed up sum to be deducted from the budget balance of £10,043.82.
Thank you for your assistance.
4 March 2004
22. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 15 March 2004
Following our telephone conversation I confirm that I wish an additional sum of £2,000 to be paid from the staffing allowance budget (balance of £10,043.82 less the March salary payment to Henry) which I expect to leave a balance of around £7,600.
This sum to represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties.
Thank you for your assistance.
15 March 2004
23. Letter to the Finance & Administration Department from Mr Derek Conway MP, 4 September 2004
With effect from 1 October 2004 please terminate payment to Henry C Conway payroll reference [ … ].
4 September 2004
86 Mr Derek Conway MP
24. Agreed Note of Meeting with Mr Henry Conway, 21 May 2008
Present:
Henry Conway (HC) Rt Hon Greg Knight MP (GK) John Lyon, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (JL) [note taker]
Introduction
JL thanked HC and GK for coming in. He explained that the purpose of this discussion was to help him understand how HC had organised his work as his father’s research assistant from 2001 to 2004. [The note taker] was attending to take a note, and would show HC the note so that he could satisfy himself of its factual accuracy. The note would summarise the questions and answers but would not be a verbatim transcript. JL explained that it was likely that he would submit a Memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The note of the meeting would be appended to this and HC should therefore expect it to be published. He confirmed that this was a complaint against HC’s father rather than against HC himself. He thanked GK for attending as HC’s friend.
JL said that his questions would focus on starting work; the employment contract; the work schedule; HC’s university and social life; the job and his pay.
Starting Work
JL Can you confirm you were studying for a BA in Art History at the Courtauld from September 2000 to July 2003 – and then for a MA at the Courtauld from September 2003 to July 2004?
HC Yes. The Courtauld is at Somerset House, 5-10 minutes away. The flat is 10 minutes away too.
JL How did you come to be offered the job?
HC When my father was returned in 2001 he needed extra assistance especially as he was new to a London seat. Previously he had been a county MP, but now there were bigger issues to deal with. He asked if I would do the job. My background qualified me to do this. I was on a place at a very selective course [at the Courtauld]; I had run a school gallery which was open to the public and prepared catalogues; I was used to doing research; I had worked for the Vaughan library at school and had done librarian duties. I was more than qualified for the lowest grade of parliamentary research assistant.
JL When your father moved from thinking ‘I have an awful lot of work’ to offering you the role, was there any discussion of why he was offering you the job?
HC No. He needed someone he could trust implicitly. That was perhaps a motive.
JL Why did you accept it?
HC I have always been interested in politics. I set up a political society at school; and I helped to restart one (the Palmerston Society). I reviewed political lectures at school for the ‘Harrovian’.
JL Shortly after your appointment the pay guidance came out. It says “… research assistants are likely to be graduates. They need good research skills, the ability to think analytically, good communication skills and a good understanding of the political environment”. You were appointed before this guidance was issued, but you were not a graduate. When you saw the guidance, did that give you any cause for concern?
HC I didn’t see it. But I was just a part time research assistant. Lots of other undergraduates had part time jobs. I felt I had skills learned at school, which were perfectly adequate. I was
Mr Derek Conway MP 87
improving my skills at the Courtauld.
JL Did you feel this was a big step up, from school activities to working to support your father?
HC No.
JL You have said you had political awareness. How did you feel you were developing your skills in research, analytical skills and communications?
HC These were set in motion at school and I built on them. I was more efficient in work than many others who put—I felt—a disproportionate amount of time in. I had good A levels: English, History of Art, Geography (three Bs). The Courtauld has its own admissions process involving an interview, a separate exam, like the Oxbridge system. 3000 people applied for 45 places. It was very selective
The contract
JL The contract was signed and dated 1 July 2001. The Department of Resources did not receive a pay request until November. Did you start work then, on 1 July?
HC Yes.
JL So you worked for some months with no pay. Was that a problem?
HC No.
JL I understand that you got it backdated before Christmas?
HC Yes
JL I understand that you got your pass for the Parliamentary estate. Can you remember when you got that?
HC I can’t remember.
The Work Schedule
JL You were contracted to work 18 hours per week. Take me through an average day in term time when the House was in session.
HC I didn’t have an average day. I don’t have a 9 to 5 mentality. That suited my father’s working practices.
GK Even if the days are different, it might be helpful if you could pick a typical day.
HC To give you examples of what I would do in a day, at the Courtauld I had 6 hours of lectures per week, which reduced in the second and third year; for my Masters I had 2 seminars per week. I felt that the idea of a full time student at the Courtauld was not necessarily full time at all. I was living in my father’s flat in Westminster. On a typical day I would pick up the post from the Members’ post office at around ten in the morning. Most of my lectures would be in the afternoon, but sometimes they were in the morning. I had no set routine; sometimes my father works from home. He keeps his papers there: the Raise Again file and the Awaiting Reply file. If the lectures were in the afternoon, I would start at about 10am at the flat or go straight to the House of Commons and pick up the post—or sometimes my mother would drop the post at my father’s room in the House.
88 Mr Derek Conway MP
I would start at 10 going through the papers at my father’s office, or in my mother’s office - in the lower ground floor secretarial area. I often had lunch there. (You’ve seen the letter from one of the other secretaries.2) There was no set routine. On a typical day I would work from about 10am until 1 or 2pm. But there were weekends too. I don’t have a 9 to 5 mentality. An MP’s work is not 9 to 5; it involves weekend and evening work. That is why it suits so many to employ relatives, based at home. I’m aware of the needs because my father has been an MP since I was 6 months old.
JL So at 1pm or 2pm you were off to the Courtauld. Did you then return later?
HC Sometimes I did go back.
JL If you returned, when was it: early evening or deep into the night?
HC It was entirely dependent on the work my father asked me to do and my Courtauld commitments. As a general rule I did not work in the evening. JL Was this your typical Monday to Friday working pattern?
HC The 18 hours includes weekends. It wasn’t clock in, clock out.
JL How long did you spend working for him at weekends?
HC Maybe a couple of hours… dealing with the mail. As a London MP my father would get a big postbag; things from the Mayor’s office; the Met police; there is more to digest for a London MP. I would go through them and if relevant précis them.
JL I haven’t quite got the feel of the early evening weekday shift. Was it one hour or a couple of hours? HC It depended on what needed finishing off.
JL So a typical day would involve 3 hours usually in the morning but sometimes in the afternoon; and sometimes more time in the early evening? Is that right?
HC And three hours spread over evenings and weekends. There was no fixed routine.
JL Apart from your mother and father, who saw you at work?
HC There was [Secretary A] who worked at the desk next to my mother’s desk; [a member of staff] in the post office; and [the secretary] in the constituency. I spoke regularly to [the constituency secretary] and sent her things. [Secretary A] saw me most. But mostly I worked in the flat or my father’s office. The route into my father’s office doesn’t go through a shared secretarial office. There was no reason for anyone to have seen me. JL Am I right that all this was when the House was in session and during the university term?
HC As my father said, it was less intense in the recess but the mailbag doesn’t diminish.
JL How did the university holiday periods work?
HC The work for my father didn’t change between the Courtauld holiday and term times. I’m not one for great trips around the world. I went sometimes to France for weekends.
JL If the House was in recess, did the work drop off?
HC The hours didn’t change. There were fewer meetings. I would help with these, handing round coffees and so on.
2 WE 9
Mr Derek Conway MP 89
In recess I would be based more in the flat than in the House. The work was a mix of mundane clerical work: dealing with post, stuffing envelopes, letters to new voters or new constituents, emails… My father dislikes IT.
JL Would you say they added up to 18 hours? Or were you working more than 18 hours? Or less?
HC I don’t think I was working more than 18… I would say 18 hours.
Links to university life
JL I would like to ask about your university life and your social life inasmuch as it affected your job. I am concerned with your activities then, not now.
HC The Courtauld is different; it is not like a campus university; there is not a broad range of clubs and I am not a sportsman. My friendship group was university and general London wide. I didn’t have a ‘normal’ university social life.(i)
JL Were your friends aware of your working life?
HC No. The Courtauld isn’t the usual university set up. I had a 6 hour commitment only. I copied journals and books to work on at the flat.
JL What about your friendship group? Are you saying that they didn’t know that you had a job that brought in substantial money and occupied your time?
HC It was not a great mystery. But I did not go around saying that I worked for my father. It is not in my nature to do that. (ii)
JL So did you discuss it with your friends?
HC Our discussions weren’t really about those kind of things. I didn’t talk about my work in Parliament
JL: Your father sent me a copy of the Mail on Sunday magazine of 27 April which says you were a diligent student who worked very hard to get your BA and MA. Is that right?
HC Yes, there has been huge misrepresentation of my character, and media inaccuracy. I would be surprised if you believed some of the things that were said.. Some reports were so inaccurate that they even said I was at Cambridge rather than the Courtauld.
JL It must have been hard work, more than clocking in for 6 hours of lectures. When did you do that work?
HC In afternoons and evenings, when I wasn’t doing things for my father. I had no fixed routine: it was logistically easy. It was 5-10 minutes walk to the Courtauld and 10 minutes to the flat. I managed the time very easily. There was no undue pressure: I didn’t feel I couldn’t cope.
JL So was your main academic work in the afternoons, mornings or evenings?
HC Generally nights, for essays, written seminars etc, depending on my schedule.
90 Mr Derek Conway MP
JL Where did you do this work?
HC Senate House, the Courtauld Library, and mainly the flat. I used a lot of journals and books which I copied and brought home.
JL Were you required by your course to do extended visits outside London?
HC No. I had one trip to the Ile de France for one week. That was the only foreign travel I did with the Courtauld. My special interest was in Victorian architecture and painting. My connection to Parliament was useful; I wrote a paper on Charles Barry. Studying art in London, it is all at your doorstep. It is a great advantage.
JL The magazine article says you didn’t lead a party lifestyle as a student, but that you knew lots of very social people at university. An article about you in the Daily Mail on 8 May however says you were a socialite who liked to entertain with elaborate cocktail parties. The Mirror on 31 January quotes a fellow student and Miranda Appleby as saying that you wouldn’t have had the time to work for your father. Were any of them right? When did you do your socialising?
HC I’ve never met Miranda Appleby. When the article came out I asked some people from the Courtauld and they didn’t know her. It is such a small place – 45 people per year – I would have known her. The Press have borne in on my life now and cast that light on my life back then.(iii)
JL So is the 27 April article right: you didn’t lead a party lifestyle?
HC It would have been abnormal not to have a few parties. But I didn’t ignore academic work – or the things for my father. The articles make me out to be a complete social animal. That is certainly not true.
JL So you entertained sometimes?
HC In a civilised normal fashion: I had drinks parties about twice a year.
JL Did you have any other commitments, paid or unpaid?
HC No, there are no clubs and societies at the Courtauld.
JL How often did you see your non-university friends?
HC It wasn’t an excessive social life.
Work
JL Your job divided between clerical duties and research work. Your father has told me that the research work—preparation of foreign briefings and précis of domestic reports—was about
Mr Derek Conway MP 91
half your work-load. Is that about right? What did that clerical work entail?
HC I remember I would collect the post and send the constituency post to [the constituency secretary]. I would take calls and forward email to the [constituency secretary]. I would sort through my father’s in-box and delete irrelevant or junk mail, which has increased for Members.(iv) If something came in with a long attachment I would print the attachment and the email. I had access to my father’s email. (v)
JL What about shorter ones?
HC He would reply to those. I would also edit photos. (I did photography at school.) I used specialist software, for example to lighten the photos if the flash hadn’t been used properly. I would use these for Press releases. In addition, I would help at meetings.
JL How could you attend meetings if you weren’t there in the afternoons?
HC I could come in as and when. You’ve seen the photo of me at the Moroccan reception. Morocco was one of my foreign affairs interests.
JL So as a rule of thumb do you agree with your father that the clerical work was 50% of the role.
HC Yes.
JL The skills needed are less than you need for the research side. Is that right?
HC Yes, but you need intellectual ability to sort the postbag. The Awaiting Reply and Raise Again files were maintained at the flat. I would initiate the process [of maintaining the Awaiting Reply file], but my mother or father would send the chase up letter. The Raise Again file was future engagements in date order, in cellophane. I would then bring them forward for my father to access. When my parents were away eg with the IPU or CPA, I would get the files ready in the flat for him.
JL Turning to your research work, this divided between foreign affairs and London issues. Where did you do it?
HC In my father’s office or in the flat…quite a lot of time at the flat. I did no Parliamentary work at the Courtauld. I would not have used university resources for this.
JL Who commissioned the work?
HC Sometimes my father; sometimes I suggested it. I prepared précis on an A4 sheet, with a list of points. My father likes things cut down. I also took cuttings from local newspapers. It was an organic type of work.
JL Can you give me an example of the sort of report you produced? Was any background research required?
92 Mr Derek Conway MP
HC I can’t remember specific cases; it is seven years ago. I might flick through things. I would use Internet tools.
JL Were there any policy points you would make at the end of your note or was it just a factual summary?
HC It was a summary only. I would draw attention to issues with Post It notes or verbally.
JL When did you speak to your father about these?
HC There was no set time for briefings.
JL How many London reports would you do?
HC I can’t remember. It would depend on how many were sent in. There were animal welfare issues as well. My father received a lot of those.
JL Can you tell me how many such reports you worked on: was it 5 in a month ….or 50?
HC Not 50. But I am a fast skim reader. I learned this for my cataloguing work at school and for my work at the Courtauld.
JL Balancing the clerical and the research work, your research work accounted for 9 hours per week. There must have been a substantial number of reports.
HC Yes but I also had to read the discarded reports. Half the 9 hours would be taken up with that.
JL Were you also the initial sifter of material?
HC It depends on who opened the post. I would sift then check with my father if I wasn’t sure of its relevance.
JL What about the foreign affairs papers? How did you produce a foreign briefing?
HC I would do it on an A4 sheet. I had an outline: economic issues, social issues, political—which I was familiar with from my Geography A level. At the end was protocol. I remember Anglo Moroccan issues—Morocco is one of my interests—and the Arab nations: an interest of my father’s.
JL How did you cover economic, social and political issues on one sheet?
HC It wasn’t always one sheet. There was no great detail; just this is an issue, that is an issue, eg trade with Britain. Then social issues.
Mr Derek Conway MP 93
JL Take Morocco. What might a brief include?
HC I remember the regeneration of Marrakech to improve it as a tourist destination. And Easyjet planning to open a terminal from such and such a date.
JL Would you identify sources as well as facts?
HC Sometimes. When it came to the political, my father would add things. I might cover relations with other Arab states. It was 7 years ago and I can’t remember specifics.
JL I’m trying to find what sort of things you put in the briefs… a feel for your familiarity with the work, what they entailed.
HC It is impossible to remember papers now.
JL I’m asking to find out how familiar you are with this kind of work.
HC Crime, health would be other social issues. Many other countries had big social inequalities. I remember doing something on Antigua.
JL What went in the social briefing on Antigua?
HC Child poverty. I was flagging issues up, not in any great detail.
JL Is it the facts, or ‘There is a problem with child poverty’?
HC It all depends if I came across a figure.
JL Where did you get the information?
HC All major British and international newspapers have websites. I would Google them: the FT, the Independent, embassy sites, tourism sites, sometimes official and sometimes not. I did not use the HoC library, which is thorough but does not deliver an instantaneous response.
JL How long would a briefing take?
HC It depends on how much information there was: for a very small island in the Commonwealth, not much: for a capital city, rather more. My father trusted me to judge what was relevant and what wasn’t.
JL How much time did you have to do these?
HC The timing would all depend on when the visit was and how important. Internet research can
94 Mr Derek Conway MP
be instantaneous. When it was quiet my father would ask me to look ahead.
JL Would you use Parliamentary IT?
HC Yes, in the flat. I didn’t have my own log-in: I used my father’s.
JL What feedback did your father give you about this work?
HC It was verbal…sometimes ‘Well done’. Sometimes he would ask questions. I wasn’t making detailed briefs; it was an overview only.
JL You used your skills learned at school and university to produce briefings for an MP who is about to go to a foreign country. Did you at any time feel out of your depth? He was using these in major international for a.
HC No, he would use these as a launching pad to explore other areas. I didn’t feel out of my depth. I did Geography A level so I was familiar with social, political and economic issues.
JL Was it enjoyable?
HC Yes. I like Parliamentary life. It was beneficial to both of us. I was improving my skills, honing my research skills, which were useful when I started work in a PR firm in London.
Pay
JL Can you remember your first pay increase in March 2003, backdated one year? Your salary increased from £8000pa to £10000pa. Did your father tell you what that was for?
HC No.
JL Was there any discussion about salary that you can remember?
HC No.
JL Do you recall the bonuses you were paid? They were £1200 in February 2002; £1188 in March 2003; £1499.99 in March 2004. Was there any discussion with your father about these?
HC I don’t recall. Maybe he was pleased. I remember them coming through but no specific discussion.(vi)
JL Can you remember the one occasion you had an overtime payment (£829 paid in April 2004)?
HC Yes. I couldn’t remember what it was for until I spoke to my father. It was for sorting through
Mr Derek Conway MP 95
water damaged Hansards in the cellar of the London flat, to see what could be saved, and filing old constituency cases from the previous Member. (vii)
JL How long did you take over this? £829 is the equivalent of one month’s worth of your annual salary [£10,000], or 72 hours’ work.
HC I can’t remember. It was a laborious and messy task. I can’t remember the exact amount of time.
JL Can you remember when you did it? What time of year?
HC I can’t remember, but it was not warm.
JL The bonus was paid in April 2004. Let’s say the work was done in the winter, in your Masters year. Were you working on your dissertation then?
HC I’m an efficient worker, there was no undue pressure. It was manageable. I should say that I recently wrote a book. I managed to produce 25,000 words in two and a half months.
Conclusion
JL Thank you very much. Are there any other points you would want to make?
GK [to HC] If it is suggested that your father overpaid you, what would you say? Did your salary go up or down when you left salaried employment to work for a PR consultancy?
HC It was a major PR company and my pay was considerably more than I received as a research assistant.
GK [to HC] If you find that you remember more about anything you have been asked about today you should write in.
JL One last question from me: your job description says that you should keep files. Are such records available?
HC I gave my reports to my father. My father’s way of working is that he would not keep many records; he does not keep things hanging around.
JL Thank you. As GK said I would be happy to receive any further information which occurs to you after the discussion. I appreciate that this was some years ago and more evidence may occur to you now your memory has been jogged. [The notetaker] will now prepare a note of our discussion and show it to you to check on its accuracy. Thank you both for coming in and thank you Mr Conway for responding to the questions.
96 Mr Derek Conway MP
Comments from Mr Henry Conway on considering the note of the meeting (Letter to the Commissioner from HC, 4 June 2008)
(i) ‘… I do not consider there is such a thing as a ‘normal’ university life for London based undergraduates as they are not campus-centred. It should be noted that for a third of the time I was a postgraduate ‘ (ii) ‘I do not think my response to your questions was clear enough. It was not my practice to talk about what my father did, what his views were etc, but I did not conceal that I worked for him either. Most of my inner circle of friends were aware that I was a part time parliamentary assistant and had a pass to the parliamentary estate. ‘From time to time I would have friends in to show them around, sometimes for coffee in my father’s office but more often for a drink in the Lords Bar which is popular with staff. After our session I was discussing with some of my friends your particular interest in whether any would have known what I did and I believe some may have already written to you about this. ‘Staff of MPs should be discreet as a matter of course but having grown up in a political household, I was particularly aware, from quite an early age, of the need not to gossip about my Father’s work. To the outsider this may appear unduly secretive. (iii)You asked about entertaining in my private life, which may have been prompted by the media coverage of the club nights I now host, the reporting of which has also been enormously inaccurate. What I do in my private life now should be of no relevance to this enquiry and the confusion between my personal interests and that which I have to do to promote night club events has been prurient on the part of the media rather than a truthful reflection of my work.’ (iv) ‘My father did not like reading e-mails and preferred to have them heavily edited. He trusted my judgement to delete those that would not be of interest to him and to highlight those I considered would be relevant to his interests. The volume of incoming e-mails has grown enormously and I would estimate that less than 10% were of any interest to my father.’ (v) ‘It may seem that this control of information was a responsibility greater than my appointment grade would warrant, but I clearly knew my father well, his prejudices and interests so I did this e-mail editing extensively and effectively. Perhaps a newly appointed outsider would have found that more difficult.’ (vi)‘I understood the bonus payments to have been covered by the previous enquiry, which found them to have been in order. In so far as the over time payment was concerned, I mentioned the additional work of sorting through the Hansards but I do not think the scale of that task comes across in the notes of our exchange.’ (vii) ‘ From 1983 my father had been collecting the Hansard reports on the House of Commons and also the Statutes, both sets in hard cover. Over the years this had grown to a sizeable collection and when we moved from Shropshire, following his defeat in 1997, they were boxed and stored. During this period of storage many had become damaged and my task was to sort out those that could be salvaged and those which would have to be discarded. ‘I then sorted the Hansards into those which contained a record of my father’s contributions. This salvage, sorting and cataloguing was in addition to my more routine duties and took place over several weekends. I did not record the specific dates but I remember it being rather cold as the storage cellar had no heating and many of the boxes were damp to handle.’
21 May 2008
25. Letter to the Commissioner from a friend of Mr Henry Conway, 29 May 2008
I have known Henry Conway for many years and we were discussing his recent interview with you, when he mentioned that you had queried why he did not talk about his work for his father to others.
This implied a level of secrecy which is not true.
On a number of occasions Henry invited me into Parliament and I recall visiting Derek Conway’s office and going with Henry to the Lords Bar.
During these visits, Henry was wearing a parliamentary photopass. He clearly knew his way around the building and that he worked for Mr Conway was obvious to me.
Mr Derek Conway MP 97
29 May 2008
26. Letter to the Pass Office Manager from the Commissioner, 3 June 2008
I am currently investigating a complaint I have received against Mr Derek Conway MP in respect of the employment of his son Mr Henry Conway as his Parliamentary Research Assistant from July 2001 to October 2004. I would be most grateful for your help on one aspect in relation to any Parliamentary pass issued to Mr Henry Conway.
I understand that Mr Conway was issued with a Parliamentary pass in order for him to undertake his duties as Mr Derek Conway’s Research Assistant. It would be most helpful if you could find from your records the date when Mr Conway first applied for a Parliamentary pass—I assume sometime in 2001—and the date when it was issued. If you need any further identifying information, do let me know.
I would be most grateful for your help on this matter.
3 June 2008
27. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 3 June 2008
I would welcome some further help on my consideration of the complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP in respect of the employment of his son Mr Henry Conway as his Research Assistant from July 2001 to September 2004.
I was grateful for your letter of 9 April responding to my letters of 12 March and 7 April to the Acting Director of Operations. And for sending me on 15 April the additional documents I requested in my letter to you of 10 April.
I would now welcome some further help on the Department’s handling of the employment contract for Mr Henry Conway. As you know, the contract was signed by both Mr Henry Conway and Mr Derek Conway on 1 July 2001. It would be very helpful if you could let me know from your records the date when the Department took receipt of that contract.
I have also noted in annex C to your letter of 9 April the schedule of payments made [WE 16] to Mr Henry Conway, including the bonus payments made in each of the years 2001/2 to 2003/4. I note that there was a bonus paid of £1200 in February 2002 in respect of work undertaken (I assume) in the financial year 2001/02. I would be very grateful if you could let me know whether that assumption is correct and, if so, whether level of the bonus paid was in accordance with the rules on bonus payments, including the cap on 15% of the employees earnings, in force at the time.
I would be very grateful for your help on these matters.
3 June 2008
28. Letter to the Commissioner from the Pass Office Manager, 4 June 2008
In response to the request in your letter dated the 3rd of June 2008. I am able to confirm that Mr Henry Conway the son of Derek Conway MP, applied for a parliamentary pass on the 25th of June 2001 and the pass was issued on the 5th of October 2001.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.
4 June 2008
98 Mr Derek Conway MP
29. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, 6 June 2008
Thank you for your letter of 3 June in which you seek clarification about the contract of employment of Henry Conway and the bonus paid to him in February 2002.
With regard to Mr Henry Conway’s appointment I can confirm the information in my earlier letter, of 9 April, namely that:
• the date of appointment given on the contract is 1st July 2001;
• the contract and job description are signed and dated by both parties as 1st July 2001;
• the authority for payment of salary to Henry Conway is signed and dated by Derek Conway as 27 November 2001; and
• Henry Conway was placed on the payroll by the Department in December 2001 and salary payments were backdated to 1st July 2001.
We are unable to confirm the precise date when the contract of employment was received by the Department. It was not date stamped on receipt. The only possible indication of when the contract may have been received is that the letters ‘P.A.S’ (Personnel Advice Service) have been written on it, which indicates that it was seen by, or sent to, this team at some point. The Personnel Advice Service was not set up until October 2001.
Although the contract appears on the PAS electronic records, which was maintained to confirm that Members’ staff actually had a valid contract, the record does not provide a date for when the contract was received. I am therefore not able to give a conclusive response to you enquiry about date of receipt. I could not rule out the possibility that the contract and salary form were received by the Department at the same time.
With reference to the bonus payment paid in February 2002, this was 15% of the annual salary. At the time this bonus was awarded the guidance in the Green Book (February 2001) was silent on the amount allowed to be paid. The change in the allowance system in July 2001 introduced the new Staffing Allowance and our advice to Members at that time was that bonuses should be no more than 15% of annual salary. This was not incorporated into the Green Book until April 2002. This version said that bonuses were capped at “...15% of that employee’s salary” (Page 18, Green Book, April 2002, emphasis added). The Green Book of June 2003 stated that “Bonuses paid in the year may not exceed 15% of the employee’s gross annual salary” (Page 21, footnote 1).
In other words, in 2002 our interpretation of this guidance was that bonuses of 15% of gross annual salary were permissible. It was not until the introduction of the Green Book of June 2005 when the guidance was altered to “Bonuses paid during the year may not exceed 15% of that employee’s gross annual salary/received in the year” (Page 21, footnote 1).
Therefore, the bonus of £1,200 awarded in February 2002 was, in my view, in keeping with the rules at that time about the quantum payable.
6 June 2008
30. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 10 June 2008
I thought you would find it helpful to see the attached exchange of correspondence I have had with the Director of Operations at the Department of Resources and with the Pass Office Manager [WE 26-29].
As you will see, I asked the Director for some clarification about the date when the employment contract for Henry Conway was received in the Department and for confirmation of the position on the payment of bonuses within the 15% cap. The Director of Operations has responded on both points.
Mr Derek Conway MP 99
I asked the Pass Office Manager about the dates when your son applied for and was issued with his pass for the Parliamentary Estate. As you will see, her research shows that Henry applied for his pass on 25 June 2001 and that it was issued on 5 October 2001.
My inquiries into this complaint are continuing. I may need some further help from you and, if so, I will be in touch with you later about that.
10 June 2008
31. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 June 2008
Thank you for your letter of 10th June. In his reply to you of 6th June, the Director of Operations has had to respond with a number of assumptions and the difficulty he has in categorically responding to your requests for exact details reflects the problems inherent in considering a matter several years distant.
I have not seen copies of his replies to you of 9th and 15th April.
It may help to explain that only a Member returning upon re-election has a personal office, staff desk allocation and support equipment readily available. New MPs and those returning after a period out of the House, have to wait for their respective Party Accommodation Whip to agree appropriate allocation.
This is, usually, some months after the election so I did not have a base on the Parliamentary estate until the late autumn of 2001 and not from June as might otherwise have been assumed. Computer equipment was not issued until later that year, so we had to use our own personal facilities for parliamentary duties.
I hope this helps put in perspective why I initially had to work from my Westminster apartment and subsequently often found it more convenient so to do.
Attached is a letter from another MP’s former secretary [WE 33], who worked in [the shared secretaries’ room], who has emailed us from […] with a letter describing how she saw Henry working for me. She is sending you a signed copy by post but has given her telephone number for authentification if required in the meantime.
In his letter of 4th February 2008 Mr. Borrowman sets out the four points of his complaint, which were clearly based upon erroneous reports in the Daily Mail.
Genuine need: the duties Henry carried out for me are similar to those undertaken by hundreds of researcher/parliamentary assistants and I hope we have demonstrated to your satisfaction that such work was necessary and solely related to my parliamentary duties.
Able & qualified: no specific qualifications are laid down so a breach of this rule may be subjective, but in Henry’s case I believe we have established his intellectual capacity to do the job required and the experience he had gained formerly.
Actually doing the job: other than my own testimony, you have before you several testimonials from those who recall seeing Henry on the Parliamentary estate and specifically in the secretarial office. In addition, there is the photograph of him assisting at a meeting in Westminster Hall.
Reasonable costs: other than for the parameters set by the approved grades, the term “reasonable” is subjective. In Henry’s case he was paid well within the lowest grade and his remuneration never exceeded that permitted.
At this preliminary stage of your investigation, I hope you have reached the point at which you are able to reject the complaint.
14 June 2008
100 Mr Derek Conway MP
32. Letter to the Commissioner from Research Assistant, 10 June 2008
I am writing to you with regard to your current inquiry into the employment of Mr. Henry Conway by his father, Mr. Derek Conway.
During the period January 2001 to September 2003, I worked as the Parliamentary Researcher for [an MP]. From September 2001 to approximately June 2002, I worked in an office in [… ] of the House of Commons with Mrs. Colette Conway.
During that time, I met Mr. Henry Conway on multiple occasions. He was working as a Parliamentary Researcher and Assistant to his father. Although I cannot provide dates, I can confirm that Mr. Henry Conway worked periodically from Mrs. Conway's computer in our office undertaking research activities, and, I believe, assisting in constituency correspondence. I spoke with Mr. Henry Conway on the occasions he was in our office, and we discussed briefly the work we were each engaged in. It is through these discussions and his presence in our office, that I can confirm, without doubt, that Mr. Henry Conway was gainfully employed by Mr. Derek Conway and that the work he was performing directly supported Mr. Derek Conway’s Parliamentary duties.
If you have any questions or concerns and would like to contact me to further discuss my knowledge of Mr. Henry Conway's employment, my email address is […], or you may telephone me at […].
10 June 2008
33. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 20 June 2008
Thank you for your letter of 17th June 2008 and the enclosures from the Department of Resources. In his letter to you of 9th April 2008 the Director of Operations states, in categorical terms (paragraph ten), that all the payments I authorised for Henry were “within the rules set out in the Green Book”.
As you will be aware the Committee has already found the bonus payments to Henry to have been within the rules.
The overtime payment was itemised in my letter to the Department, dated 15th March 2004 and clearly states that “This sum is to represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties”. The nature of those duties was explained to you by Henry.
The Director of Operations, in that letter, also makes clear that from the first year of his employment until the last, Henry had not received a salary increase.
I very much hope that the letters from the Department, combined with the other evidence and witness statements submitted to you, enable you to reject the complaint and terminate the inquiry.
20 June 2008
34. Agreed Note of meeting with Secretary A, 10 July 2008
Present:
Secretary A John Lyon, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (JL) [notetaker]
Mr Derek Conway MP 101
JL Thank you for coming.… I should make clear that this is an allegation against Mr Derek Conway: I have asked you to come here today to see if you can help me with your recollection of what you saw of Mr Henry Conway. You are not the only witness I shall see. I should like to say that I do realise that it is stressful to come and answer my questions but it is important that I have as good information as possible to help me resolve this complaint.
I shall be asking you about events some years ago and I recognise that you may not be able to remember everything. If you cannot remember you should say so.
I am investigating the allegation that Mr Derek Conway (DC) employed his son Mr Henry Conway (HC) and that HC did not do the work for which he was paid between July 2001 and September 2004. [The notetaker] will take a note of the meeting and will show it to you.
The note is likely to be included in any memorandum I submit to the Committee on Standards and Privileges. I would not use your name but I would say that you were a secretary working in the same area as HC. The Committee would need to see that information but you could make representations against further publication if you wished. Normally such information would be published.
I will be asking you about your job; about your time in [the shared secretaries’ room]; about when you saw HC, what you saw of his work and what you saw of him at any social events in the House. Are you ready to start our discussion on this basis?
A Yes.
JL I see from your letter of 12 June that you have been in the House for some time, since 1992. How many Members have you worked for?
A I have been here as a PA since April 1992. I worked for the first Member for 9 years and the next one for 2½ years. Then I had six months freelancing and then I worked for another Member for 1½ years and then for my current Member for 3 years.
JL Thank you. I should like to ask you about your time in [the shared secretaries’ room] from the end of June 2001 to the end of September 2003, when DC was employing HC.
A I read the report on Freddie Conway, and I now know that DC was paying HC. I didn’t know at the time that he was getting a salary.
JL How did that affect what you thought of HC?
A I thought it was just Henry, helping.
JL Tell me about the set-up of the area.
A There were four desks for the four PAs in there, but one desk was used by a jobshare. The room had two doors.
JL Would you have seen everyone who came in?
A Yes, if I had been there.
JL Let me ask about access to DC’s room. Is it possible to go there without being seen from [the shared secretaries’ room]?
A Yes, it is in a completely different part of the building and up some stairs.
JL You said in your letter of 12 June that you worked in a very busy room and it was often difficult to concentrate on your work. Why did you put that in?
102 Mr Derek Conway MP
A Because you are going to ask detailed questions and it is going back 7 years. I was doing a very busy job for a demanding MP. It was relentless: I was constantly busy.
JL So is it true that you would be aware of people coming in, but you weren’t sitting watching?
A Yes.
JL Moving on to Henry, when did you first see him?
A I had met him before, through the Conways, probably at a social event, well before he came to work for his father. So I knew him already.
JL So he came to work for his father in July 2001, coming up to recess. When did you first see him in that year? Before the summer or in the autumn?
A I can’t remember.
JL Did anyone tell you what he was doing?
A No, I thought he was just being helpful. No-one said anything about his role.
JL Did you see anyone showing him round or helping him to learn the ropes?
A I can’t remember. His mother would have done that.
JL Did you know he was an undergraduate student?
A Yes, I remember at the time he was at the Courtauld.
JL When he came in what desk would he go to?
A He would go to his mother’s.
JL But she could have been there. And what happened if she was there?
A He would have been standing up.
JL How often did you see him?
A I don’t think there was any regular pattern. It is possible that there were weeks when he didn’t come in at all, but others when he came in several times.
JL But there was no pattern?
A No.
JL How long would HC have spent in that area?
A I don’t remember him working a whole morning or afternoon there. But it is too far back to remember.
JL What about recesses and holiday times? Was HC there?
A I can’t remember.
JL Is there anyone who might have seen HC more than you?
A Well, the other two or three in the office would have had the same sightings of him.
JL Moving on to his work, you talked in your letter of 20 February of seeing him in [the shared secretaries’ room], opening and sorting the mail, and doing clerical duties.
Mr Derek Conway MP 103
A I recall him collecting post. I recall him coming in with a bundle or bag of post.
JL Did he open it?
A Maybe he opened it, maybe he gave it to his mother, maybe he did both.
JL Moving on to his clerical duties, could you see what he was doing?
A He did things at the computer.
JL Where would his mother be?
A She would be at her desk or in DC’s office or perhaps at home. She also works at home.
JL Was there anything else you recall? Did you see him preparing reports or printing out anything?
A I can’t remember.
JL Did HC ever speak about his work for his father?
A Sometimes we had the opportunity for a chat. From memory this was usually about life outside. I didn’t want to discuss my work and didn’t expect HC to discuss his. He would speak about his course at the Courtauld. He seemed to have a varied social life: his friends did interesting things and invited him to join them.
JL I don’t want to know details about HC’s private life. That is not relevant. But I do need to know about the balance between his work and social life, because that is relevant to his working hours.
A I got the impression he had quite a busy life.
JL Did you get the impression that he spent a long time on his work for the Courtauld?
A He was quite passionate about it but he didn’t have to be there all day or every day. Sometimes he had only one lecture or tutorial.
JL What did he do the rest of the time?
A He would socialise…it is what eighteen year olds do.
JL Do you mean parties in the evening or going for weeks away?
A I think it was evening parties, or weekends in London or England.
JL Moving on to HC’s work for his father, he says he helped his father with official meetings. Did you see anything of this?
A I have no recollection of this. It would not have been in [the shared secretaries’ room] in any case.
JL Is there anything else you can remember that might be of use in identifying the work HC undertook?
A I thought HC was living at home and helping out.
JL Given what you saw of HC, why were you surprised that he was working 18 hours per week and paid?
A I was surprised when I read the report about FC which mentioned HC. I didn’t know that he was on a salary so I was quite surprised.
JL Why was that?
104 Mr Derek Conway MP
A I thought I knew him a bit better than I did.
[The room] was quite a small room and we did get on, all four of us. I’m surprised I didn’t latch on to this.
JL Did Colette Conway (CC) ever mention it?
A I don’t think so. I would have remembered it. I was surprised that I hadn’t picked up that he was earning a salary. I was surprised that he was earning a salary for what he was doing, and about the bonuses. But maybe he did do 18 hours per week.
JL Moving on to social events, you had lunch with HC.
A It was always impromptu, maybe two or three times per month. CC would say ‘HC and I are going to have some lunch’. It was nice in the summer. CC has a spouse pass so we could go to the Terrace.
JL What did you talk about?
A Not work; we talked about fun things. We wouldn’t have discussed my work and I wouldn’t have asked about his. We would have talked about the social activities I mentioned earlier.
JL What happened at the end of lunch?
A I would go back and beaver away.
JL Did HC come too?
A Not necessarily. He might have gone to the Courtauld, or home or to his father’s office or to our office. There was no pattern.
JL What about other times? Did you see him at any social events? Did he belong to any House activities or clubs? Or did you see him with any friends in the House?
A I can’t remember. He had a full pass and was entitled to be there. He could come in without going through [the shared secretaries’ room].
JL You left [the shared secretaries’ room] in September 2003. Did you see HC after that?
A Yes, but I was freelancing. I saw him socially but our paths would not have crossed workwise. I associate the time I did see him frequently with my time in [the shared secretaries’ room].
JL Thank you. That is very helpful. Is there anything else you want to tell me?
A I didn’t know HC was earning a salary when I saw him in the House. Whether he did his eighteen hours per week or not I don’t know.
JL Why was it such a surprise to find out?
A I felt I might have known. I thought he was helping out.
JL Thank you. Are there any other points you want to make?
A What will happen now? .
JL [The notetaker] will now prepare the note of the meeting and send it to you so that you can satisfy yourself as to its accuracy. As I said earlier, the note and your letters are likely to be included in any report I prepare for the Committee. I am likely also to raise some of the points you have made with DC. I shall tell him that I am seeing you and other witnesses. I am very grateful for your help with my inquiry.
Mr Derek Conway MP 105
10 July 2008
35. Agreed Note of telephone interview with Research Assistant, 17 July 2008
Present: Research Assistant John Lyon, Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards (JL) [Notetaker]
JL Thank you very much for agreeing to speak to me, and for your letter of 10 June. The purpose of our conversation is to get your help in my consideration of a complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP (DC) that his son Henry Conway (HC) did not do the work for which he was paid from July 2001 to September 2004. I have a colleague with me, who will take a note. She will send you the note so you can satisfy yourself about its accuracy. As I wrote to you, if I submit a memorandum to the Committee on Standards and Privileges the note will be annexed to it and published too. Can I just ask: have you anyone with you? And are you in a setting where our conversation can be overheard?
RA: No, I can confirm that there is no-one else in my house.
JL: This could take between 30 minutes and 1 hour so if you would like a break at any time, just ask. Are you clear about the procedure?
RA: Yes.
JL: My letter of 30 June set out the main areas I wanted to ask you about. They are about your job both now and at the time, your time in [the shared secretaries’ room], when you saw HC, what you saw of his work and your discussions with him. First, could you tell me about about your current job?
RA: I have been a policy analyst in the Department of National Defence since 2004. For the past two years, between September 2006 and July 2008, I have been on secondment to the Privy Council Office as the defence analyst working for the Foreign and Defence Policy Advisor to the Prime Minister.
JL: Thank you. Tell me about your job in the House.
RA: I started in the House of Commons in January 2001. I worked part time for [two MPs]. I split my time between them until September 2001 when I started working full time for [one]. For my first nine months, from January to September 2001, I worked in [one MP’s] office or hotdesked with [the other MP’s]secretary in [the shared secretaries’ room]. Just before I became full time for [the second Member] in September 2001, [his] secretary went on maternity leave so I then had the run of her desk in [the shared secretaries’ room]. From September 2001 I worked exclusively for [him]. Then, in the late summer or early autumn of 2002, [his] secretary and I moved out of [the shared secretaries’ room] to Star Chamber Court.
JL: Your letter of 10 June says this was June/July 2002.
RA: I believe that is right, but it was some time ago and I am not absolutely certain of the move date. It was some time between summer and fall 2002. I was there until September 2003 at which point I left
106 Mr Derek Conway MP
JP’s employ and came to [ ].
JL: Let me ask you about your time in [the shared secretaries’ room] from the summer of 01 to June/July 02. Can you tell me about the set up in that area and how many people worked there?
RA: It was an open plan room with four desks in the middle, one down each side, all facing the centre. [Secretary A] had the desk on the north wall. [Secretary B] had the desk along the east wall. I had the desk on the south wall, and Colette Conway (CC) had the desk on the west wall. There was a door on either side of CC’s desk. We worked at very close quarters. We talked constantly.
JL: Would you see everyone who came into the room?
RA: Yes, absolutely.
JL: Can you tell me when you first met HC: the circumstances in which you met him, who introduced you?
RA: CC would have introduced him. I met all of CC’s children. HC was a larger than life young man. He was probably coming back from school [university] in May 2001. I was introduced by CC.
JL: Did CC say what he was doing?
RA: She would have said that HC would be coming in and out and he was doing work. He might be working at her desk. HC said he was doing a research paper for his father. We got talking about what we were up to, for example we might ask each other ‘How are you doing with your research?’ I think he also did the odd constituency correspondence, because that was mentioned when we talked about what we did.
JL: Was there any reference to the hours he did for his father, and were you aware at the time that he was being paid and was therefore a member of DC’s parliamentary staff?
RA: Yes. I knew he was being paid.
JL: Did he mention that he was a student?
RA: Yes, he was studying art history. We did talk about this, because I had myself done an art history course. I think he was studying in London.
JL: Was there any discussion of how he managed to combine his Parliamentary work and undergraduate study?
RA: No, but I wouldn’t have thought it odd. I worked 40 hours per week in a pub while I did my Masters’ degree. I have put myself through two degrees. It didn’t seem odd to me.
JL: How often do you recall seeing HC in [the shared secretaries’ room]? In your letter of 10 June you
Mr Derek Conway MP 107
refer to seeing him ‘multiple times’.
RA: I saw him there at least six times. I think it was six to ten times, between June/July 2001 and June 2002.
JL: So is it accurate to say that over that period you would see him coming in about once a month?
RA: Yes, that is accurate.
JL: Was there a pattern to this? Did he come in any particular days or times, for example in the morning?
RA: I can’t remember. But I worked 10am to 6pm, and it was never near the start of my day. He was never in the office before I was in the office.
JL: Did you have an impression of how long he would stay there?
RA: I don’t think it was all day. If memory serves he might also have worked work in DC’s office, or in the Library in Portcullis House. We had access to the computers there.
JL: Would you have seen him there?
RA: Well, I might have run into him there if I was collecting papers.
JL: You say he ‘worked periodically’ from CC’s computer. How frequently was that?
RA: If he was coming in to pick up work, he would be on that computer and sitting there if CC wasn’t there. She might have been either in DC’s office or running errands.
JL: Did he come in during recess?
RA: The six to ten times I saw him would include some in recess.
JL: Do you know where else he worked?
RA: I think he may have worked in a man’s shop, but I don’t know why I thought that.
JL: I meant the places where he worked on his parliamentary duties.
RA: If he wasn’t in [the shared secretaries’ room], CC would sometimes say ‘HC is in DC’s office’. That was elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster.
JL: Turning to HC’s work, you say you saw him undertaking research activities. Do you know what
108 Mr Derek Conway MP
paper he was working on?
RA: I remember an exchange about research methods. I don’t remember the subject of the paper. DC didn’t have a shadow posting.
JL: Do you know what sort of research it was and how he undertook it?
RA: I can’t remember. HC was at school [university] or on a break, working for his father. He picked up some of the things his mother was doing. Our conversation was on a surface level.
JL: What did you see him do on the constituency correspondence?
RA: I would see him opening, addressing and dealing with the correspondence.
JL: Did you ever talk together about the research workload?
RA: Not about the research; but about the amount of constituency correspondence.
JL: Do you know what use his research work was put to?
RA: No.
JL: From what you saw, can you say roughly what proportion of his time was spent on research and what on constituency letters?
RA: No.
JL: Did you discuss, or were there any signs of pressure between his university or social life and his job?
RA: No. HC is very cheery. There were never signs of strain.
JL: Would you know if he went with his father to, or prepared for, official meetings?
RA: No.
JL: Did you ever take calls for him if he wasn’t in the office?
RA: No. We didn’t take calls for each other.
JL: Moving on to other contacts, did you see HC other than in [the shared secretaries’ room]?
Mr Derek Conway MP 109
RA: I think I did see him once or twice. I would have seen him around Parliament, in the corridors, and at his parents’ house once.
JL: Do you know who he was with?
RA: No, I wasn’t part of his circle.
JL: Do you know what he did after lunch?
RA: No.
JL: Do you know if he was involved in any House activities?
RA: I don’t know.
JL: Did you see any friends with him?
RA: I think I saw Freddie (FC), or his sister; I wouldn’t recognise his friends.
JL: You left [the shared secretaries’ room] in June or July 2002. Did you see HC after that?
RA: I might have seen him in passing, but I don’t remember a specific time or place.
JL: Thank you. Finally, can you tell me why you decided to write your letter? Was it your idea?
RA: Yes it was. I had an email from CC saying that DC was stepping down, but she didn’t say why. I looked on the BBC website and read some of the articles there which were very derogatory about CC and HC. (FC was still in school at that point.) I used to see CC every day. She worked very hard and never complained. I don’t like to see names dragged through the mud on the basis of conjecture. I meant to email CC but I just didn’t have the time so did not write when I initially meant to. Then CC asked me if I would offer a letter and I was happy to give moral support. No-one penned a draft for me to sign. I wrote the letter myself. I can vouch for CC’s character. I had known her a while and she was very good to me. They are a forthright frank and honest family. I didn’t like seeing the Conways torn to shreds in the media, and if I could help by noting for officials what I saw both Colette and Henry do, then I felt it was my responsibility to do so.
JL: Thank you. [The note taker] will now prepare a note of our discussion and send it to you for you to check factual accuracy. As I said, the note is likely to go with the evidence attached to my memorandum to the Committee and be published. Thank you again for your help.
17 July 2008
110 Mr Derek Conway MP
36. Letter to Secretary B from the Commissioner, 31 July 2008
I would be grateful if you could assist me with an inquiry I am making into a complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP in respect of the employment of his son Mr Henry Conway as his parliamentary research assistant from July 2001 to October 2004.
In essence, the complaint is that the payments which Mr Derek Conway made to Mr Henry Conway from his parliamentary allowances when he employed him as his research assistant were not justified by the work he undertook.
In the course of my inquiries, I understand that Henry Conway visited and undertook some work in the [the shared secretaries’ room in] the House of Commons. I understand also that you shared that working area with other Members’ staff for some of the period of Mr Henry Conway’s employment.
I have received assistance from others who worked in [the shared secretaries’ room] over that period, but I would very much welcome receiving your recollection of what you saw of Mr Henry Conway during that time.
In particular, it would be helpful if you could let me know:
when you worked in [the shared secretaries’ room]and the nature of your duties;
whether you saw Mr Henry Conway during that period (or at other times) and, if so, when you first saw him there, what you saw him doing in [the shared secretaries’ room], how often you saw him there, typically how much time he spent there, whether there was any pattern to the time he spent in [the shared secretaries’ room] and what you saw of or understood to be the work he was undertaking either there or elsewhere;
what Mr Henry Conway or others may have told you at the time about the nature of his work – including his hours, that he was a paid member of staff, and that was also an undergraduate (in the last year an MA student) at the Courtauld Institute.
what impression you may have had from these or any other contacts with Henry Conway of how he managed his parliamentary work together with his university commitments.
Any other points you were able to help me with would be most welcome. I recognise, of course that this was all now some time ago and your recollection is likely to be affected by the passage of time. I do understand that, but nevertheless I hope you might be able to help me on the matters I have raised.
I enclose a note setting out the procedure I follow in inviting evidence from witnesses.
At this stage, the information you give me will be confidential to the inquiry. But I would be likely to append your response to any memorandum I submit to the Committee on Standards and Privileges and that would normally be published with any report the Committee produce. I would also be likely to show your response to Mr Derek Conway at some point in the inquiry.
I would be most grateful for your help on this matter. If you would like a word about any of this at any time, please do feel free to contact me or my office.
31 July 2008
37. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary B, 11 August 2008
Thank you for your letter of the 31st July about the complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP.
I will try and answer your questions but as you rightly say given the lapse of time, it is impossible to be precise.
I worked in [the shared secretaries’ room] for a period immediately after the 2001 general election. I can’t remember precisely how long, but it was not more than a few months before I moved to my present office in [ ].
Mr Derek Conway MP 111
I did see Mr Henry Conway during that period but cannot remember the first time I saw him there. He used to open the post and generally help Mrs Conway when he was in the office, but I do not recall there was any regular pattern of attendance nor do I know whether he undertook any work outside the office.
Mr Henry Conway did not discuss his work with me nor did I know that he was a paid member of staff although I did know that he was studying at the Courtauld Institute.
It is hard to recall at this distance in time, but I rather got the impression that Henry Conway was a bright chap who could have had the ability to undertake pieces of research as well as his university commitments.
11 August 2008
38. Letter to Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary from the Commissioner, 29 July 2008
I would be grateful for some further help on the inquiry I am conducting into a complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP in respect of the employment of his son Henry Conway from July 2001 to 1 September 2004.
In essence, the complaint is that the payments Mr Derek Conway made to his son from his Parliamentary allowances when he employed him as his research assistant were not justified by the work he undertook.
I was very grateful to receive your letter of 25 February 2008 which Mr Conway forwarded to me. I have been undertaking a number of inquiries to secure the information necessary to help me determine this complaint. I do appreciate that this is all some time ago but it would be very helpful for me if you could provide me with some further information or recollection to help me on the following issues:
could you let me know what was the frequency with which Henry would send you the constituency- based letters which his father received in the House of Commons and roughly how large was each dispatch? I appreciate that you are unlikely to be able to be precise about this – but some idea of this (and how you knew they were from him and not from Mrs Conway) would be most helpful;
could you give me some idea of how frequent or how numerous were the occasions when you had telephone contact with Henry Conway? Again, I recognise that you are unlikely to be able to be too specific about this, but some idea of how often in a typical week (or month) telephone calls passed between you would be most helpful;
when you telephoned Henry, can you recall whether you phoned him at Mr Derek Conway’s flat, Mr Conway’s office in the House, or at Colette Conway’s desk in the House? If you used all three, can you recall in which of these locations you would normally or be most likely to speak to Henry? If you received calls from Henry, did you get any impression from where these calls were made?
Any other points or comments you wish to make which you think might help me with my inquiry would, of course, be most welcome.
I attach a note which sets out the procedure I follow in asking for evidence from witnesses. If I prepare a memorandum for the Committee on Standards and Privileges, then I would expect to enclose your reply to this letter with that memorandum and you can expect it to be published with any Report the Committee themselves might produce. In the meantime, what you write is confidential to the inquiry and not for wider dissemination. I may, however, show your letter to Mr Derek Conway during the course of the inquiry.
If you would like a word about any of this, please contact me or my office. I would be very grateful for your help on this matter.
29 July 2008
112 Mr Derek Conway MP
39. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Conway’s Constituency Secretary, 6 August 2008
Thank you for your letter of 29th July.
Post: With regard to constituency mail, I should make clear from the outset that I dealt with constituents' general correspondence and surgeries. Other constituency matters such as visits and tours, tickets for Question Time and more general contact with schools, groups, statutory bodies, businesses, press, etc, were handled by Colette Conway.
I hope this explanation will help you understand how we worked the incoming mail system. It was collected and sorted in Westminster and letters from constituents, that did not fall within the exception mentioned above, were forwarded to me at the constituency office in Sidcup.
Had that sorting not taken place at Westminster I would have received the entire post-bag much of which would not have concerned me. As I was in Sidcup I obviously did not witness the sorting of mail but over time I came to recognise the handwriting of Derek, Colette and Henry. I cannot recall the frequency but I do recall Henry’s script on envelopes addressed to me. This was particularly so for the weekend bundle which I would receive on Mondays or Tuesdays depending on posting.
When Derek and Colette were away from Westminster, I knew it was Henry sorting the mail and despatching my portion because again I would recognise his handwriting on the envelope and we would often speak on the telephone. As to frequency, it was certainly the weekend mailbag, Recess periods and when Derek and Colette were away from Westminster, but also at other times too.
Estimating the volume is more difficult as this was so varied. When a particularly contentious issue was current then it would be reflected in the size of the mailbag. Derek would often comment at the volume of mail unrelated to the constituency and I formed an impression that my portion was about a third of the total. We did not measure or record the volume of incoming mail but I have no reason to believe it was much different to that of any other MP.
When Derek was in Westminster, he would draft replies by hand, using an abbreviated long-hand, which accompanied the correspondence for my processing. When he was away from Westminster Henry would send the constituents’ letters, with any necessary photocopies or enclosures, directly to me but without the covering response and I would adapt a more standardised reply.
When Derek and Colette were away, if correspondence didn’t fall into a category with which I could deal, then Henry would pass messages to his Father and take a note of what he wanted as a response which was then given to me to incorporate into the reply. Henry was used as the conduit for this as often Derek had to arrange contact out of normal office hours when I would not be available.
Telephone: Contact with Henry would be weekly rather than monthly as you specifically enquired. Several times during the week and often more than once in a day I would have to locate Derek. If he was working from the flat it was nearly always Henry who answered as Colette preferred to be in her Commons office.
There was no rigid pattern to this but most often I would call Colette at her office first, as she preferred to be in early. As we are near to London we get a lot of visiting school-parties and pensioner groups and when Colette was escorting them, Henry would answer her telephone. If Derek was at the Commons, but not available to speak with me, then Colette or Henry would take a message for him.
If Derek was at the flat, most of the time Henry would answer the telephone. If Derek was in his Commons office again Henry would sometimes answer as he worked from Derek's computer, while Derek worked from the meeting table.
This “hot-desking” may seem strange but I gather Derek was on a waiting list for a second desk so I think they moved around to suit whatever they were doing at the time. They would be where facilities were available or where Derek needed them at the time so it was not unusual, particularly in the mornings, for Colette to be at the Commons but Derek and Henry at the flat.
Mr Derek Conway MP 113
Often during the day and several times a week, I would call to give Derek a message from a constituent who had personally visited the Sidcup office, or telephoned with an enquiry. Henry would take the details for his Father to deal with in due course.
I mentioned earlier that Derek would send me handwritten drafts and though I gradually got used to the abbreviations it would be fair to say his writing was not always clear and I was sometimes baffled by a particular paragraph. I would telephone for clarification, and when Henry answered he and I would try to interpret what Derek was getting at, often resulting in faxing the said paper. Henry has a good sense of humour so often our conversations were less than flattering about Derek’s writing.
At several years distance it is impossible to be precise but I spoke frequently with Henry, at various locations and we had a good working relationship; he was quick, efficient and often chased up his Father if the response to a message from me was dragging on.
To the casual observer this way of working may seem odd but I gather a lot of MPs employ family members. I frequently noticed that emails from Colette had been sent at weekends, particularly on Sunday evenings. Derek did not operate on a Monday to Friday, nine to five basis and given the odd times that constituents made contact this was not expected by his electorate either.
I would add one further observation that may assist you. As Derek has been effectively forced to step down early from Parliament, this has a consequence for me as my job ends at the same time as his. Therefore the points I have given you are not from an employee seeking to flatter her employer in order to hold on to a job—it will not exist when Derek finishes.
Therefore I have told you, to the best of my ability to recollect, about the type of contact I had with Henry. I found him polite and approachable and he was always helpful to me in dealing with Derek’s administration.
6 August 2008
40. Extract from article on NatWest Student Living Index, published 7 August 2008
Number of students juggling study and work hits record high
The number of students in part-time employment during the academic terms has risen sharply following the past two years of falling numbers of student workers, according to the NatWest Student Living Index.
Nearly half (42%) of undergraduates are in part-time term employment and earn a combined total of more than 2 billion, while their cost of living has risen to £10.8 billion, an increase of £500 million since 2007.
…
According to the study, the hardest-working students are in Belfast and Dundee, where 64 per cent and 61% are undertaking term-time employment. On average, those with a part-time job work 14 hours per week although a quarter of students work more than 20 hours each week. Students in Plymouth work the longest hours (18 hours), whereas Birmingham students work the shortest (10 hours).
In total, British students taking term-time jobs expect to earn £2 billion over the coming academic year. The highest average weekly income from term-time jobs is to be found in Brighton (£120). This contrasts with just £63 per week in Swansea.
… http://www.easier.com/view/Finance/Household_Bills/Spending_Habits/article-195278.html
7 August 2008
114 Mr Derek Conway MP
41. Comparison of Mr Henry Conway’s pay rates with Department of Finance and Administration recommended pay rates
Comparison of Henry Conway's pay rates with DFA recommended pay rates 2001-2 2002-3 2003-4 2004-5
DFA Research/Parliamentary Assistants' starting pay (London), £15,000 £15,495 £16,068 £16,614 as recommended from autumn 01
DFA Research/Parliamentary £26,500 £27,375 £28,388 £29,353 Assistants' pay upper limit
DFA Research/Parliamentary £20,750 £21,435 £22,228 £22,984 Assistants' mid point for London
Henry Conway FTE pay rate £16,667 £20,833 £20,833 £20,833 (assuming full time = 37.5 hours)
DFA Research/Parliamentary Assistants' starting pay for 18 £7,200 £7,438 £7,713 £7,975 hours DFA Research/Parliamentary Assistants' upper pay limit for 18 £12,720 £13,140 £13,626 £14,089 hours DFA Research/Parliamentary Assistants' mid point for London £9,960 £10,289 £10,669 £11,032 for 18 hours
Henry Conway pay rate for 18 £8,000 £10,000 £10,000 £10,000 hours
Comparisons Henry Conway's pay rate compared with recommended London Research/Parliamentary £800 £2,562 £2,287 £2,025 Assistants' starting pay for 18 hours Henry Conway's pay rate compared with Research/Parliamentary -£4,720 -£3,140 -£3,626 -£4,089 Assistants' upper pay limit for 18 hours Henry Conway's pay rate compared with midpoint of London -£1,960 -£289 -£669 -£1,032 Research/Parliamentary Assistants' range for 18 hours
Notes 1. The figures assume a full time working week of 37.5 hours. 2. Henry Conway's employment predates the publication of the pay guidance in autumn 2001. 3. Henry Conway was employed for a part year in 2001-02 and 2004-05.
Mr Derek Conway MP 115
42. Agreed Note of Meeting with Mr Derek Conway MP, 16 September 2008
Present: Derek Conway TD MP (DC) John Lyon CB (JL) [Notetaker]
Introduction
Thank you for coming in. This is [an official from my office] who is here to take a note. It will not be verbatim. She will check with you its accuracy after our meeting. The note is likely to be included with any Memorandum I send the Committee and therefore to be published.
I set out the areas I wanted to cover in my letter to you of 21 August. These areas were: the decision to employ Henry; the nature of his work for you; where he undertook this work; terms and conditions; and your record-keeping practices. I also wrote to you on 12 September with some information about pay levels.
Decision to employ Henry Conway
JL Why did you decide to employ Henry as your research assistant?
DC There is provision for Members to take on this sort of help. Over 200 employ relatives. There is nothing wrong in doing this. When I returned to the House in 2001 there were no office facilities. These were sorted out later. The need to have someone working from my flat was a factor. It was not a 9 to 5 commitment or a 9 to 5 appointment, and it did not seem appropriate to advertise the job to a complete stranger.
JL Did you consider other options?
DC I am not sure what these would have been, given the need to work from my home or my office.
JL Of Henry’s qualities, can you identify the ones that equipped him for this job?
DC Henry is bright. He declined a choral scholarship at Cambridge. When he said he wanted to go to the Courtauld I had no idea of its standing, but the fact that 3000 applicants applied for 45 places shows how selective it is. Henry has coped with what was asked of him throughout his school years. He was more than able to do the work: educationally he is far better qualified than his father. Henry was in his second year at university and we had an idea of his work pattern. It seemed from his commitments that he would have no difficulty in doing what I wanted him to. Henry is extraordinarily well organised. When he was writing his book the amount of material he pulled together was phenomenal. He could do the work within the timescales I required. The Library can produce a huge volume of information which is not always what I wanted. Henry knew what I wanted and how I wanted it: he was capable of working at a far higher level than I required. And he has a well developed command of the English language.
JL At the time Henry had been one year at university. How far was the cost of his university education a factor in your decision to employ him as your research assistant?
DC Despite what the Press may think, it was not a deciding factor. I could afford it. I was still doing another job. I was earning considerably more than an MP’s salary from my job outside the House. I was Chief Executive of the Cats’ Protection League and MD of their direct mailing outfit. It is in the Register of Members’ Interests.
The nature of the work
JL What other staff did you employ at the time and what did they do?
116 Mr Derek Conway MP
DC I had [my Commons secretary] at the House of Commons. I also had one secretary in the constituency for a few months. I replaced her.
JL Here is the job description which you drew up in July 2001. [JL gave DC a copy of the job description] [WE11] Can you help me by telling me what tasks Henry actually did?
DC I believe this was a standard job description from the Fees Office. ‘Deal with constituents’. I didn’t ask Henry to deal with constituents. He sorted out the post that came centrally. Everything with an electoral number went to the constituency, and everything else was dealt with centrally. Henry was asked to sift through the post and get rid of the rubbish, then to sort it into what could be dealt with here and what needed to go to the constituency office. From time to time he would liaise with [the constituency secretary]. As for ‘maintain subject matter files’, Henry would keep the Raise Again file for all forthcoming activities. Material received from the constituency secretary he would file in the Awaiting Reply file so we didn’t lose track of things. I compartmentalised the work to avoid confusion. If anything went wrong with the Awaiting Reply file we knew it was Henry’s responsibility. ‘Safekeeping of completed projects’: that is Fees Office speak. If Henry had pulled the material together I didn’t see the point of keeping the summary. The Commission said that records were not to be kept for more than four years. ‘Liaising with MEPs, the GLA’: I did not ask him to do this. He did speak to [the constituency secretary], to [my Commons secretary] and to others coming to meetings. ‘Attitude’: You have seen the photo of the Moroccan ambassador with Henry. It shows the room as it was before redecoration in 2006, so you can be sure it wasn’t taken a few months ago. The purpose of the photo is to show that Henry could dress appropriately.
JL You told me in your letters of 11 and 31 March what work you gave Henry to do. Broadly this was clerical and research work. Why could your secretary or constituency secretary not do this?
DC Well, the [incoming] post would be here in Westminster and it needed to be sorted. There would be no point in sending it to the constituency. In one way it is not a demanding task but it is arduous: opening all the envelopes and getting rid of waste. The arrangements for who did this were very casual. [My Commons secretary] likes to be in the office, but because of the proximity of the seat to London we get lots of pensioner visits and school visits. These tend to be slotted into the day earlier than visitors who come from further away, and [my Commons secretary] would meet and greet them. This task would often occupy her in the early morning. The volume of visits was high, sometimes twice or three times per week, and there was a lot of running around to get tickets and a lot of organisation involved. It wasn’t that every Monday [my Commons secretary] would sort the post and every Tuesday Henry.
JL If Henry hadn’t been doing this work, what would have happened? Why couldn’t one of the others do this?
DC If he hadn’t done it the post would have piled up. That does not suit my style of working. I prefer to get the post out of the way earlier. For example, Henry would collect the post on Saturday. Not many MPs would collect their post on Saturday, but Henry would do that. In the winter I prefer to work in the House of Commons but in the summer it is stuffy and there is no air conditioning, so I prefer to be in the flat.
JL I see from Henry’s oral evidence to me that he edited photos for your press releases. Do you have copies of any of the press releases – or could you find them for me? I am not suggesting that you were required to keep them, but they might be helpful evidence if you had.
DC I don’t know whether any of the press releases might be available from my computer, but I will have it checked.
JL Your constituency secretary told me about Henry passing messages from you about how you wanted to reply to constituents’ letters and deciphering your handwriting. Neither you nor Henry
Mr Derek Conway MP 117
mentioned this. Why not?
DC I guess he didn’t think it was terribly relevant. I scratch everything down in vague shorthand for typing out later. [The constituency secretary] would pass messages to Henry who would take them and pass them on at a quiet moment later in the day if they didn’t need to be dealt with urgently. There was some joshing went on between them.
JL Do you know why this didn’t appear in the letters? Page 4 of your letter of 11 March mentions Henry’s contacts with your constituency secretary, but nothing about the detail of deciphering handwriting and going through drafts.
DC I don’t know. Sometimes [the constituency secretary] wouldn’t be familiar with which Minister to write to and there would be an exchange of views and she would ask Henry.
JL Your constituency secretary talks about Henry sorting the mail and says that about one-third was constituency letters for her. Was this about right?
DC Yes, but it would depend what was going on. If there was a proposal to close a hospital or a bill like the Embryology Bill that would increase the volume. In my constituency about one third are well off; one third are middle class and one third quite poor, and it is this group which tend to generate the work for an MP. The others would reach for a lawyer or an accountant before going to an MP if they had problems. All of this was mixed in the incoming post. We needed to open it up and filter out the substance.
JL And can you give me some idea of the overall volume at that time?
DC I couldn’t tell you numbers. But about the same as most MPs I would think. I don’t know if Henry spoke to you about his photocopying. He would do two copies of constituents’ letters so that when he forwarded the post to [the constituency secretary], she would receive two copies. One of these would be forwarded to the Minister. These copies were made on the Parliamentary copiers near my office.
JL Taking research work, why did you need this research and précis work?
DC When I returned to the House in 2001 I had no connection with London or dealing with London bodies. I found that everyone wants to lobby you. There was far more material than for a midland seat. Henry would plough through and make a judgement about whether I would take an interest. There were publications like ‘Cement Weekly’ and material from the London Development Board or Age Concern. Henry would sit and read these. If I was interested Henry would do me a summary. The House doesn’t expect me to do this myself. On foreign affairs, I was involved with the CPA [Commonwealth Parliamentary Association] and IPU [Inter-Parliamentary Union]. If there was a visit or an issue on a particular country Henry would research that for me. I’ve seen a suggestion that the CPA and IPU would do that themselves, but I have never known them do so. They did not have the resources.
JL On the précis work, Henry in his evidence to me said that sometimes you commissioned the work and sometimes he decided to initiate it. Which was it?
DC Well, some publications he would bin straightaway. Constituency stuff he would put aside to bring down to [the constituency secretary]. He would run through the third pile with me. Often I would be at the desk and he would be at the other end of the table. There was no formal structure to this: it was generated by what came in. Sometimes the work was generated by committees. Everyone sends you stuff. Henry would plough through it all and didn’t drop any bricks.
JL If [your Commons secretary] was opening the post, did she sort it into piles?
118 Mr Derek Conway MP
DC She would keep some constituency mail and mail about schools etc. The other stuff she would leave in a pile in my room for Henry to get stuck into.
JL You told my predecessor that Henry helped you to understand London issues.3 Was this more than the précis work?
DC Not really. He summarised the relevant factual issues. Henry would read through the mail - for example, material from the Lottery - and might put it aside if one group in the constituency might want to follow it up. When I was in Shropshire there was no regional element, but in London there was a strong ‘regional’ lobby.
JL Turning to the research briefings, can you remember any particular subject covered by Henry’s briefings? Was there anything you might have kept?
DC I haven’t kept records. The Commission tells us to get rid of records. In any case the briefings were fairly functional documents. I don’t think any of it was groundbreaking. My interest in the Arab world rubbed off, so while briefing on Thames Water for example might be done with no great feeling, the briefing on Morocco, for example, would have a bit more to it. Henry was efficient at putting a briefing together before meetings: who was what and so on.
JL Were there any that stood out particularly?
DC None that I recall. I didn’t feel obliged to read everything he produced. Sometimes I’d feel guilty if I threw away something he’d prepared.
JL In your letter to me of 11 March, you refer to briefing material on general and foreign affairs and London. In your letter of 31 March you refer to briefings on foreign affairs and on London. In his evidence to me Henry referred to London reports, animal welfare reports and foreign affairs briefings. He has explained how he prepared the country briefings. You told my predecessor, however, that Henry was not as involved as Freddie in the foreign affairs side.4 Yet you have told me – and Henry confirmed – that half his time was spent on research work. Can you help me in reconciling these statements? Was the job to provide a précis of the London material and reports on foreign affairs?
DC The précis were not just précis of what I had been sent: sometimes there was more. This wasn’t up [my Commons secretary]’s street. It was very much Henry’s side, depending on the subject area.
The areas were foreign affairs, London and animal welfare (because of my involvement with the Cats Protection League). For example, I remember a report on microchips for dogs and cats. Jack Cunningham was the Minister. When the government brought in dog wardens I was asked to speak at a conference. Henry produced the material for this. There were also defence issues as a result of my involvement with the TA.
Henry was not as involved as Freddie in the foreign affairs side. Freddie had narrower interests, in foreign affairs and economics; Henry had a broader focus. To give another example, the Islamist party in Morocco was starting to grow. There was a meeting chaired by the Ambassador and I expected Henry to give me briefing. He didn’t give me policy papers but I didn’t expect him to.
JL What proportion of his time was spent on précising reports, other London briefings, briefings on foreign affairs and briefings on other issues?
DC I didn’t keep timesheets showing what he was doing every 15 minutes. I doubt if other Members did. I can’t help you on that.
3 Committee on Standards and Privileges, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 280, Paragraph 4 of WE13 4 Ibid.
Mr Derek Conway MP 119
JL Were the research papers factual or did they include assessments? How long were they?
DC They were factual as I recall. As to length, I preferred one not twenty pages. I wanted a synopsis not a full blown report.
JL How much value did a single sheet report give you?
DC I didn’t have to read what Henry ploughed through. Volumes of correspondence came every day. Some of it was relevant but Henry would plough through and distill it. He didn’t seem to mind.
JL How sophisticated were the reports?
DC They weren’t expected to be. They were a pulling together of other material. You’ve seen the letter from [the Research Assistant]. She knows more about what you are talking about than I do. It is not just my imagination that Henry was doing this work: there are many witnesses.
JL Henry told me that you used his reports as a “launching pad to explore other areas”. How did that work?
DC Well, when I was a Member before I didn’t take much interest in the Overseas Territories. But I got more interested and got involved with All Party Groups. If I was invited to meet a visitor Henry would put together a brief. He did whatever was asked.
JL Can you help me on the frequency and number of reports and précis produced in a typical week or month?
DC There was no typical week or month. There were fewer meetings in the recess and more when the House was sitting. In terms of workload Henry would make sure that what he produced was brief as I have a limited attention span. A lot of papers would come to me. Some were of value, some not. Sometimes there were a couple a day. I would say several a week.
JL Who does the research and clerical work for you now?
DC How much interest do you think there is in my views now? I have resigned from everything. I do constituency work only.
Location of the work
JL Can you help me on where Henry did this work for you? I have taken evidence, as you know, from three people who worked in the shared secretarial office and while they are not identical in their recollections, it seems at least that Henry’s visits to the shared office were pretty spasmodic. One person believes no more than one a month. The other says some weeks it was possible there were no visits at all; in others he came in several times. The third person (who was only there for a short time) said there was no pattern to his visits. Your constituency secretary however says that Henry would cover [your Commons secretary’s] telephone when she was escorting visitors. Henry told me he would sometimes pick up the post in the House at 10am and go through the papers either in your office or your secretary’s office. I am having trouble reconciling these recollections. Are the secretaries right in not seeing a regular pattern of attendance?
DC There wasn’t a regular pattern. I am not arguing that there was a regular pattern of attendance.
JL And what about the frequency of Henry’s visits?
DC Henry didn’t spend a lot of time in [the shared secretarial office]. His visits were in and out to open post. I don’t myself recall a lot of these people, but Henry is memorable and noticeable.
120 Mr Derek Conway MP
JL So where did Henry open the post and deal with e-mail?
DC It would be in [the shared secretarial office] or my office. He would make me coffee and open the post. If I had someone in my office he would find somewhere else to do it.
JL Where did he do the research work?
DC It was more often at the flat. He would use the PC there or in my office in the House. I did not use the PC. I would work from the table; there is enough space for two people.
JL Broadly, what proportion of his time did he spend at your flat, your Commons office and [the shared secretaries’ room]?
DC A lot would depend on where I was going to be. If I wanted someone to be with me to meet and greet, [my Commons secretary] would do it or Henry. I hosted a lot of meetings in the little meeting room off Westminster Hall. It would depend what time of day; most of these meetings were mornings not afternoons. The pattern depended very largely on what I was doing, but Henry would be in my office more than in [my Commons secretary’s], and he would be in my flat more than in my office. Enough people saw Henry. I am not worried about how often he was seen or the charge that he was ‘all but invisible’.
JL So the secretaries saw him only spasmodically, because he didn’t spend a huge amount of time in [the shared secretaries’ room]?
DC He would spend more time in the flat than in my office and more time in my office than in [the shared secretaries’ room].
JL How long would he spend at one sitting?
DC I don’t know. If he was producing reports I have no idea how long it took. If [the constituency secretary] was trying to contact me sometimes I would be still at the flat, or I might be in my office, or in a meeting. If [my Commons secretary] was unavailable Henry would pick up the phone in London and [the constituency secretary] would end up chatting to him.
JL Henry did not get his pass for the Parliamentary estate until October 2001. How did he manage until then?
DC Security was not so strict then. Anyone coming in with me would be able to enter the estate with me. You just had to know your way round and look as if you knew your way round. Of course, you still had to make a note about these staff on the Register.
JL Your constituency secretary says she gathers you were on a waiting list for a second desk. This has not been mentioned before. Can you confirm this?
DC Yes, I had a lot of exchanges with [an official] in the Serjeant’s office about this. It was to be a work station for Henry. I didn’t feel any need to mention it.
Terms and conditions
JL You signed Henry’s employment contract on his first working day: 1 July 2001. When did you send it to the Department of Finance and Administration? The Department of Resources (which has succeeded that Department) don’t know, but believe it could have been as late as end November 2001 when you put in for the pay. Can you help me in tying down the date a little more closely?
DC I am afraid that if they don’t know, neither do I.
Contracts of employment are more important if you are likely to have difficulties. In this case they were a legal necessity and a requirement by the Fees Office. The job description wasn’t absolutely accurate about what Henry was doing, but since he wasn’t likely to appear before an employment
Mr Derek Conway MP 121
tribunal I didn’t see it as important. The employment contract now is attracting more interest than it was meant to.
JL Why did you leave it to November 2001 before arranging to pay Henry, when he was working from the beginning of July? He told me that this didn’t give him problems. Do you know why you were so late? Here is the form requesting pay, Form A, signed 27 November 2001. [JL showed DC a copy of Form A.[WE 18]]
DC It wasn’t an aspect I was remotely interested in. It was not my first priority.
JL The job description and employment contract were signed on the first day. Why wasn’t this form sent at the same time?
DC The contract was dated 1 July 2001, the date it was legally required to be from. It may be that I wrote to the Department about the pay before I filled out the Form A. I remind you that [Secretary B] who was only in [the shared office] for a few months has said that Henry was around in that period. They cannot say that Henry was all but invisible.
JL Can you help me on the overtime payment? Your initial claim in March 2004 was for a single sum of £2000 intended to cover both the overtime and the bonus. Following discussion with the DFA, you seem to have settled on the maximum bonus allowable under the 15% rule, £1500, the same percentage as you requested each year, although you had to scale some of it back in 2002-03. The bonus plus the overtime payment in effect exceeded the sum of your original claim by around £300. How did you calculate this overtime figure? [JL showed DC a copy of DC’s letter of 15 March 2004 to the Department of Finance and Administration]
DC I must have had a conversation with the person in the Fees Office about it, as indicated by her manuscript annotation on my letter. But I can’t explain how she arrived at that figure. I’m afraid I can’t recall how the conversation went.
JL The original instruction in your letter of 4 March 2004 was to pay £2000 to cover both the bonus and overtime. In the end Henry was paid £1500 bonus and £829.13 overtime. It would be unusual if the officer came up with the figures herself. Was she acting on instruction?
DC Well, the letter was an instruction. I rely on what the Fees Office say. But how she reached the £829 figure I don’t know.
JL Did you know about the maximum allowable for a bonus?
DC No, but she and I must have had a conversation about what was properly bonus and what was overtime.
JL £829 is the equivalent of one month of Henry’s salary. He would have had to work over 70 hours at plain time for that or 50 hours at time and a half. He told me he could not remember the overtime work before he spoke to you. In his follow up note after my interview with him he said that recalled it more fully, including that it took place over several weekends in addition to his normal duties. Is that a reasonable estimate of the time he spent on this?
DC I don’t have a detailed idea of the overtime in terms of hours.
JL Say he worked 14 hours each weekend, allowing for what he told me was his normal weekend working of two hours. At time and a half that is just over 3½ full weekends of work with no allowance for meal breaks. You described it in your letter to me of 31 March as a “dirty and time consuming process”. How do you think that Henry could not remember working nearly four full weekends in a storage cellar, albeit 4 years ago?
DC I didn’t work it out like that at all. Henry did it because it was something that needed doing and it was messy and time consuming. These were bound volumes of Hansard, House of Lords debates and statutes from my earlier 14 years at the House.
122 Mr Derek Conway MP
JL What is puzzling me is how Henry couldn’t remember doing this. He said he couldn’t remember doing this until he spoke to you. He remembers it was damp and a bit cold at the time.
DC It wasn’t all done on the trot. I wouldn’t have said ‘I want you to do this and you’ll get an overtime payment’. He wasn’t clockwatching. People are reading things into this.
JL It was still a significant change in Henry’s working pattern.
DC It wasn’t a huge thing at the time. I believe Henry didn’t remember being paid overtime for this work. I can see you could interpret this differently, but there is a danger of reading more into it than was truthful at the time.
JL One of the secretaries and researchers in [the shared office] who apparently knew Henry and your family well says she thought he was helping out – she was surprised to learn from the previous Commissioner’s report that he was earning a salary. She said she would have expected to have known at the time. And the other said she didn’t know he was being paid. Why do you think these two people didn’t know that he was being paid?
DC It is none of their business. Two hundred Members employ family, and they don’t go round talking about it and how much they are paid.
JL The question wasn’t about why they didn’t know how much Henry was paid, but why they didn’t know he was paid: in effect that he was working for you rather than just helping out his mother when he came into the office.
DC I cannot think of any other business where you would have to bring in your family to help, or where a family member would not be paid if they were working for you.
JL But if a family member came in spasmodically to open a few envelopes, with occasional attendance, they would not necessarily expect to be remunerated, would they?
Two of the secretaries and researchers seemed very surprised that Henry was an employee. The other one did know.
DC I don’t see why they should know. Others will read in significance that I don’t.
JL How did you settle on Henry’s initial salary, which was £8000 for 18 hours a week, equivalent to a full time rate of £16,667 assuming a 37½ hour week?
DC I don’t remember. It seemed reasonable when compared with what people were getting about the place. It was not out of kilter. I wasn’t paying him £40,000 or £60,000. He went on to get more when he left me.
JL But you couldn’t know then what he was going to earn when he left you.
DC It wasn’t against any rules of the House at the time. The guidance doesn’t say how long you should pay ‘starting pay’. Henry was paid at less than the mid point. He wasn’t classed as a senior research assistant. I could have argued for that, but he was on a lower scale. Henry was not excessively paid for what he was doing. There are both witnesses and photos of him working.
JL Henry was paid at a rate £800 above the level recommended for starting pay, for over a year.
DC I don’t know how you calculate that. You have assumed that full time hours would be 37½ hours. I am not sure that is right. Everyone else I have put on a 35 hour contract. The extra hour would make a difference. I didn’t think that 18 hours was an inappropriate calculation. I could have rounded it up to 19 hours; that would have made a difference. In some weeks Henry worked more.
Mr Derek Conway MP 123
JL Henry told me that he believed he worked 18 hours per week but not more. Do you accept that?
DC Yes. He did the work I wanted him to do, quickly and efficiently. In any case I don’t believe every employee here is working 18 hours every week. They talk; they take lunches …
JL Why did you decide to review Henry’s salary in 2003 and backdate that increase one year to April 2002, giving a salary of £10,000, equivalent to a full time rate of £20,833?
DC I hadn’t done an annual review. With my other business interests I would do an annual staff assessment and the sum would depend on that and on the budget. In this case I thought the overall sum was reasonable. I am concerned that your figures could suggest that Henry was paid £38,000 in salary not £28,000 while he worked for me. He did not work for me for four years: the first and last year were part years.
JL I will take care to make clear what salary was actually received.
DC Thank you. Henry’s overall remuneration was £10,000 which grosses up to about £20,000 if he was full time. It is well within the scales the Commission publishes for Members. It was well below the midpoint of the range.
JL It was close to the mid point in 2002-03.
DC I felt it was reasonable given his qualifications.
JL What are they?
DC The House of Commons guidance doesn’t list any qualifications that are required. I don’t believe the guidance says that research assistants should be graduates. I have papers sent to me by [the Director of Operations] in December 2007, and I can’t see any requirement for qualifications there.
JL My understanding is that the guidance says that research assistants ‘are likely to be graduates’. That came out shortly after Henry’s appointment, in the autumn of 2001. I asked Henry if he had seen this pay guidance and he said he had not. But the question wasn’t about whether he was a graduate, but why - given Henry’s qualifications and the time spent on clerical duties - you felt it reasonable to pay him at the mid point?
DC There is no mention of what the qualifications should be. I hope the Committee will address that. There are 200 Members who will need to account to you for the qualifications of their family.
JL Given Henry’s qualifications and the fact that the work was half clerical, why did you pay him at this point?
DC The clerical work was such that it required thought. If you ask what calculation I made, I don’t know. You ask what qualifications he had. You may argue about what would be reasonable or moral – but that would apply to a lot of MPs. Was I intentionally breaking the rules? No. Was Henry capable? Yes. Was he qualified? He was not qualified, but he was not required to be qualified. Was the level of salary reasonable? I think it was. Was he excessively remunerated? I don’t believe so. Was he capable of commanding that salary outside the House? He did the moment he left me. He was not just qualified but competent. There are witnesses who saw him at work. I think the House will view it differently this time. If a Member employs his wife and she doesn’t know one end of a keyboard from the other that is very different.
JL Thank you. Are there any other things you would like to add on Henry’s salary or qualifications?
DC Yes, there are some things I would like to say. Henry conducted himself well. The Commission now sets a recommended starting point. But where are staff expected to be started, and how long should they be paid at this level? It is for guidance only. If I had paid Henry
124 Mr Derek Conway MP
£50,000 when the guidance said you cannot do this, it would be another matter.
JL On bonuses, I appreciate what the previous report said. You say that they were a mixture of uprating and your pleasure at his work. But the salary was uprated in the year 2002-03 and yet you still reflected uprating in the bonus. Was that double counting?
DC I don’t recall exactly how this happened. The Fees Office in those days would do much of the work for the Member. Members would set the salary at a level where it wouldn’t break the budget – but there was the problem of knowing how far the budget would go. If there was money in the budget at the end of the year the staff would get a bonus, if not they wouldn’t. The bonus issue is not particular to Henry. The fact that [the Director of Operations] sends a letter to all Members about this every year suggests that it is general practice.
JL But the salary was uprated in the year 2002-03 and yet you still reflected uprating in the bonus. Was that double counting?
DC It wasn’t a logical process. He wasn’t moving through a grade system. I didn’t calculate it that scientifically. The Committee laid down no restrictions. I have been through the wringer on bonuses. Maybe they should be allocated in a more rigorous fashion, but that is not a matter for me to decide.
JL You said that as you hadn’t been uprating the salary you gave a bonus. In 2002-03 you uprated the salary but you still gave a bonus. I asked about the reason.
DC I wasn’t splitting it in my mind. I remind you that Henry received £31,000 over 39 months.
Record keeping
JL Can I just be clear about your records – is it that you kept some of the papers Henry produced and then destroyed them after the 2005 Election, or that you never kept them?
DC I have apologized for not keeping appropriate records. But the House doesn’t require me to keep such records. I didn’t keep the papers. I would have read them and then discarded them. Henry didn’t keep the files of work he produced. I was criticised for this last time. Henry did however keep the Raise Again and Awaiting Reply files.
JL But you keep Hansards and Press cuttings and other material.
DC Yes.
JL Your constituency secretary says that Henry worked from your computer in your flat. Was this a Parliamentary computer or a personal one?
DC The work was done on a Parliamentary computer, but they were all changed over in 2005, so I would not expect that any files were kept.
JL Do you know if any of Henry’s press releases or other work are saved on the Parliamentary network?
DC I do not know.
Mr Derek Conway MP 125
JL It would obviously be helpful if there were records of Henry’s work dating from this time. With your agreement, I shall explore how they might be found. Thank you. [My official] will now produce a note and check its accuracy with you. We will also check the point about retrieval of material from IT equipment and we will check whether the Fees Office official can help us about the authorisation of the overtime payment in 2004. I shall now consider the way forward in the light of what you have told me and all the other evidence I have received. I intend to prepare a Memorandum for the committee on this complaint. I will show the factual section to you so that you can check the facts are right. Thank you for your help with this inquiry.
16 September 2008
43. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 1 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 18 September concerning a complaint against Mr Derek Conway MP in respect of the employment of his son Mr Henry Conway as his Research Assistant from July 2001 to September 2004.
Our records of the accommodation allocated to Members for their staff show that Mr Conway was allocated a desk in the open part of the Lower Ground Floor Secretaries’ area on 14 June 2001 but that this was relinquished four days later on 18 June when he was allocated a desk in [ ] in the same area.
We hold no correspondence recording any request for additional accommodation before 3 July 2006. In an e- mail on that date Mr Conway states that he “has been on the waiting list for some years for a second secretarial desk” and requesting another in [the shared secretaries’ room].
I am sorry not to have been able to be more helpful.
1 October 2008
44. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 16 October 2008
You wrote to me on 2nd October requesting clarification of the point that I made in my letter of 1 October that I held no correspondence recording any request from Mr Conway for additional accommodation before 3 July 2006.
I consider that if a written request for additional accommodation had been received before this date it is extremely likely that this would be held on file. We hold records on the allocation of accommodation from the time a Member is elected until they retire or are defeated at which time the records are destroyed. The staff who deal with Members’ accommodation are punctilious in their record keeping.
However, if an oral request for additional accommodation had been received it would not be recorded as a file note.
16 October 2008
45. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 20 October 2008
This is just to show you the response I have had from the Director of Accommodation Services about the request you made for an additional desk for your staff.
As you know, following our meeting on 16 September, I wrote to the Director of Accommodation Services to ask whether they had any record of your request. You have seen the Director’s reply of 1 October noting that the Department had no record of such a request. Following my further letter to the Director of 2 October, the
126 Mr Derek Conway MP
Director wrote to me on 16 October to say that if they had had a written request for additional accommodation before your e-mail request of 3 July 2006, it was “extremely likely” that this would be in their files. I attach a copy of the Director’s letter.
It would seem, therefore, that there is no documentary evidence of any request for additional accommodation for your staff before July 2006, although you did state then that you believed you had been on the waiting list for some years for a second secretarial desk and, from what the Director says, had you made an oral request for such a desk, no record of it would have been recorded on the file.
If you wish to comment about this, please let me know.
20 October 2008
46. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 31 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 20th October and for the enclosures sent with that of 16th October.
In his letter to you of 16th October [the Director of Accommodation Services] refers to 3 July 2006 as being the earliest date for which his Department has a written record.
In [the Director’s] letter to you of 1st October he attached an email from me to [the Clerk in Charge] (who was then responsible for staff desk allocation) dated 3rd July 2006 in which I refer to “having been on the waiting list for some years”. Whether an earlier letter can be found or not, the fact that that statement was made some two years before your investigation commenced I contend demonstrates that for several years I have been on the waiting list for a second staff desk.
A further aspect takes my request to the 2001–5 Parliament in that I had several exchanges with Patrick McLoughlin MP, then the Accommodation Whip, and he relinquished responsibility for such matters in 2005.
I have asked Mr. McLoughlin if he can recall this matter and to write to you if he does.
31 October 2008
47. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 3 November 2008
In 2002 I was entered on [the Clerk in Charge’s] list of Members seeking a second secretarial desk on the Parliamentary estate. When [another Member] steps down at the end of this Parliament, his second desk [ ] adjacent to Colette [ ] will be vacant.
I therefore emailed [the Clerk in Charge] to see if that could be allocated to me and she initially said that no second desks could be given in the main building. However upon investigation it appeared that there were already two…
It is within your gift to advise the Clerk that you are content to allocate the second desk adjacent to Colette, are you able to do that?
3 November 2008
48. Letter to Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP from Mr Derek Conway MP, 8 March 2005
In 2002 I was entered on [the Clerk in Charge’s] list of Members seeking a second secretarial desk on the Parliamentary estate. When [another Member] steps down at the end of this Parliament, his second desk [ ] adjacent to Colette on the [ ] will be vacant.
Mr Derek Conway MP 127
I therefore emailed [the Clerk in Charge] to see if that could be allocated to me and she initially said that no second desks could be given in the main building. However upon investigation it appeared that there were already two…
It is within your gift to advise [the Clerk] that you are content to allocate the second desk adjacent to Colette, are you able to do that?
8 March 2005
49. Letter to the Serjeant at Arms Office from Mr Derek Conway MP and another Member, 12 February 2003
We wish to apply for a desk each for a research assistant and that the two allocations be made for desks in [the shared secretaries’room].
12 February 2003
50. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, 11 November 2008
You wrote to me on 5 November asking for comments on further correspondence that you have received from Mr Conway, dated 31 October 2008, and 3 November 2008, concerning a request for a second desk in [the shared secretaries’ room].
I note that in correspondence between Mr Conway and his Deputy Chief Whip mention is made to a list of those seeking a second secretarial desk. I know that the then Clerk in Charge kept a list of requests for Members’ staff desks. However, this was a live document, altering as it was found possible to satisfy individual’s requirements and no copy is held currently. I have no comment to make on the substance of the letter. As the correspondence dated 8 March 2005 was between Mr Conway and his Deputy Chief Whip and not copied to this office, we do not have a copy on our file.
As I noted in my previous correspondence on this issue; we hold records on the allocation of accommodation from the time a Member is elected until they retire or are defeated at which time the records are destroyed; those who deal with Members’ accommodation are aware of the importance of record keeping in this area and punctilious in their work. That being said, we do not have a copy of the letter dated 12 February 2003 (unsigned) from Mr Conway and Mr Mitchell to the Clerk in Charge on either Mr Conway’s or Mr Mitchell’s files.
Mr Conway’s file contains no correspondence between 2001 and 2005. In April that year there was an exchange of letters concerning a desk for the staff of another Member but this is not relevant to the complaint you have under consideration. In July 2006 there are exchanges between Mr Conway, his party Chief and Accommodation Whips and the then Serjeant at Arms and his accommodation staff in which Mr Conway presses for another desk in [the shared secretaries’ room] Lower Ground Floor. In one e-mail, the copy of which is undated but in response to another from the Serjeant at Arms dated 5 July 2006, the Clerk in Charge states that: “this is not the first time he has tried to get a desk in [the shared secretaries’ room]”. There is no evidence as to when he might have made a previous request.
I hope this is helpful.
11 November 2008
51. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 6th November. I shall respond to the points in the order you put them.
Yes. Two of the witness statements you have taken refer to seeing Henry in the office in the period July to December 2001.
128 Mr Derek Conway MP
The Director of Operations in his letter to you, dated 9th April 2008 paragraph three, made the point that Henry’s employment pre-dates the introduction of requirements and before pay rates guidance was issued.
I do not recall seeing [the Head of the Fees Office’s] letter of 11th July 2001, though as this was over seven years ago that may not be unusual. Regardless of that, his letter (paragraph six) says we “suggest” and that is not the same as a requirement. This definition is important if your inquiry is related to a breach of the rules of the House. Suggestions are not rules or requirements.
I do not accept that conclusion as inevitable. The Job Description is appended to the Contract of Employment which is presumably not doubted as a draft Departmental document. If the drafting of the Job Description had been initiated by me I contend it would not include sections of Confidentiality as the family relationship would render such a concern irrelevant.
In the Director of Operations’ letter of 9th April (paragraph nine) [he] confirms that the terms of my Son’s contract “largely followed the model recommended by the Department”; so I have no reason to consider it differed significantly from the general provision at the time, though it must be emphasised again that this was neither a rule nor requirement.
The advice post-dates Henry’s appointment but in any event it is advice not a rule or requirement.
5. No. I believe my first instruction to the Department was a written note and the form followed at their request. The use of standardised forms was a later introduction.
I would make a further observation that you may wish to consider when preparing your report. During the investigation by your predecessor the Department maintained it had not received notice of sick-leave but following my insistence that this had been so, a second search by the Department located the paperwork. The Chairman of the Committee authorised your predecessor’s altering his report to resolve this confusion on the Department’s part before the final submission to the Committee.
During this inquiry a similar problem has arisen on the date of my application for a second staff desk allocation where the Department’s records do not accurately reflect the position.
I highlight this not as criticism of the Department, for the timescale of several years causes difficulty; however where the Department is used to establish a matter as incontrovertible fact is shown not to be quite the case then this area of doubt should be taken into account.
[The Director of Member Liaison Services’] letter to you of 4th November 2008 in some parts (paragraph 4) contradicts that submitted by [the Director of Operations] on 9th September 2008 (paragraph 8) and the Committee and House will, no doubt, take such disparity into account when considering your report.
14 November 2008
52. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 19 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 12th November concerning your enquiries into the timing of my request for a second staff desk on the Parliamentary Estate.
I have maintained from the outset that my requests predated the Department’s record of 2006 and submitted copies of letters from me and Andrew Mitchell MP.
The Department has no record of them, nor has it located and given to you the attached email5 from [the Clerk in Charge] dated 8th March 2005.
5 E-mail not reproduced here
Mr Derek Conway MP 129
This date post dates Henry’s employment but predates the Department’s records.
The email specifically refers to allocations in [ ] but followed many years conversations and exchanges with [the Clerk in Charge].
If the Department’s responses are to be taken as factual tablets of stone, then it will be noted that my contention of earlier correspondence is further supported by [the Clerk’s] email.
19 November 2008
53. Letter to the Commissioner from Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP, 26 November 2008
Mr. Conway has explained to me that you wish to establish how early he made a request for a second staff desk on the Parliamentary Estate.
During the 2001–2005 Parliament one of my responsibilities in the Opposition Whips’ Office as Deputy Chief Whip was for accommodation and I relinquished that duty when I became Chief Whip in 2005.
I do not have a record of the specific date of exchanges and as it was several years ago cannot recall the dates or number of times we spoke on this matter. However I do recall discussing this with Mr. Conway who during that Parliament was also Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee and therefore we had a great deal of contact as I served on the Committee.
I hope my recollection of discussing this with Mr. Conway before 2005 assists you with your inquiry.
26 November 2008
54. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 6 October 2008
Thank you for your letter dated 2 October concerning your inquiry into the complaint against Mr. Conway in respect of his son, Mr. Henry Conway, as his research assistant from 2001 to 2004.
From our records I can confirm that Mr. Conway was allocated the following accommodation (copies of the allocation letters are at Annex A) [not reproduced here]:
25/06/01 [ ]; Member’s accommodation allocated for use by Mr. Conway; the room was available for occupation from 05/07/01.
13/06/01 Desk [ ] in the House of Commons, allocated for use by Mr. Conway’s staff; the desk was available for occupation from 14/06/01. This desk was relinquished on 15/06/01 when desk [ ] was allocated.
15/06/01 Desk [ ] in the House of Commons, allocated for use by Mr. Conway’s staff and available for occupation from 18/06/01.
Secretary B is a Member’s secretary who works for [ ]. She would not be entitled to a desk allocation in her own right but I can confirm the following staff accommodation allocation made to [her employer] in June 2001 (copies of the allocation letter are at Annex B) [not reproduced here]:
26/06/01 Desk [ ] House of Commons, in place of [ ], House of Commons. The date the desk was available for occupation from was 05/07/01.
Please let me know if you need any further information from me.
6 October 2008
130 Mr Derek Conway MP
55. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Accommodation Services, Facilities Department, 8 October 2008
Thank you for your letter dated 6 October requesting additional information on desk allocations for [Secretary B].
As Member’s staff [Secretary B] would not be entitled to a desk allocation in her own right but I can confirm a change of accommodation-allocated for use by staff-to [her employer] in January 2003 (a copy of the allocation letter is attached at Annex C )[not reproduced here]:
15/01/03 Room [ ]; Member’s accommodation allocated by the Conservative Accommodation Whip to [ ] for use by his staff in place of [ ]. The room was available for occupation from 14/03/03.
Please let me know if you need any further information from me.
8 October 2008
56. Letter to the Commissioner from Secretary B, 15 October 2008
Thank you for your further letter of the 9th October.
As I advised your office today over the phone, on the dates in which you have been informed that [my employer] had a desk in the shared secretaries’ room. I was occupying that desk and it was I who then moved to [ ] at the date given where I have been ever since.
I think I said in my earlier letter that my memory of 8 years ago is not all it might be. My “few months” as obviously somewhat condensed in my mind since it seems it was closer to 20 months that I was there.
15 October 2008
57. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 19 September 2008
At our meeting yesterday we discussed whether it might be possible to locate press releases, reports and précis prepared by your son Henry using Parliamentary IT equipment. If such documents were available they would provide useful evidence of the type of work which Henry produced while he was working for you.
I have now taken advice and I am told that there are two places in which files produced between 2001 and 2004 might be found. The first is on the hard drive of your Parliamentary PCs. I am told that it is very possible that material from your pre-2005 PC was stored on its replacement. The second place where such material might be found is on the Parliamentary network. I understand that it is relatively straightforward, using the advanced search facility, to search these locations for material produced between such and such a date by someone using [your] log-in. Parliamentary Information and Communications Technology staff would be happy to explain to your secretary how to do this, or to undertake it for her if there is some difficulty. Of course, you or she would then need to check through the material discovered to identify the pieces which were produced by Henry Conway.
If you would like PICT to undertake the work for you, the first stage would be for you to print out the attached letter on your headed paper and return it to me. I would then arrange for PICT staff to make contact with you.
19 September 2008
58. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 2 October 2008
I have reflected upon your letter of 19th September and our exchanges on 16th September 2008.
Mr Derek Conway MP 131
As you will be aware, Henry commenced working for me before PCD supplied any computer equipment following the 2001 General Election. That equipment was subsequently replaced after the 2005 General Election as part of their usual rotation for Members.
With regard to hard-drive transfer, PCD did not move any files over to the new computers as my principal secretary was capable of that action and prepared the old equipment for hand-over. She retained on disc that which I considered may be required for future use, mainly photographs for use in the constituency.
PCD then replaced one of the upgraded computers due to a serious virus which could not be eliminated.
Having checked with PICT, they advise that only data deleted within the last four weeks can be restored, however if this was deleted more than four weeks ago, it would not be possible to restore.
For all files stored on Personal Drives (ie: ‘U’ drive) the retention period is four weeks and therefore this information can be retrieved four weeks after deletion. Files on Shared Drives (ie: F-Z Drive) have a twelve- week retention period following deletion. Your investigation covers several years ago rather than several weeks.
You may recall that Henry mentioned he helped with the photography because he had developed this as a particular skill at school and had become the school-photographer. As I understand it, your quest was to determine how often Henry helped edit digital photographs. Some photographs were not very good and incapable of digital improvement, perhaps by light-contrasting etc., and therefore discarded. Others from the 2001–2004 Parliament were retained for publicity purposes and therefore I do not have a comprehensive list but attach a summary of what we have on disc.
For reasons I am not technically capable of understanding, or explaining, the discs themselves do not necessarily accurately reveal when the photographs were taken. For example the Lamorbey & Sidcup Historical Society visited Parliament on 19th May 2003, as my guests. We took photographs of this for the local newspapers and sent copies to the Society, as has been our practice for visiting groups. In “properties” it states Created 6th Feb 2006, Modified 11th Feb 2000 and Access 29th Sept 2008. I was not in Parliament in 2000 and the visit was May 2003.
This may be a consequence of the virus that destroyed the second generation of PCD/PICT equipment, I cannot judge, but it does mean that the dates within the discs are not in themselves reliable.
Henry assisted me on his personal laptop which pre-dated my election in 2001 and the supply of PCD equipment later that year. This had a photograph editing software package, which was not available on the PCD supplied equipment, and that is why I used Henry to edit the pictures. He did not assist with the actual preparation of press releases, as you mention in your letter of 19th September.
Henry accessed the PCD/PICT equipment using my [ ] log-in so that he could read, assess and edit my email box. I realise that this action does not identify if he was the actual person doing so and in that regard even if PICT could retrieve the chronological data, which they say they cannot, it would not assist in identifying the human behind the mechanical operation.
If the purpose is to assess the volume of incoming email in order to conclude how many hours it would have taken to perform this function during an average week, I have no reason to believe my mail-box was either less nor greater than that of any other Member.
With regard to research, Henry explained to you that he would annotate incoming reports, highlighting the parts he considered would be of interest to me. Often he would staple a hand-written note to the front of a report summarising its content.
When he prepared a specific briefing note, this would either be by hand (which I preferred) or produced as a word-document which was not saved and filed because I did not require him to do so. His submission would be printed off for me to read as I do not like reading from a screen.
It did not occur to me, over seven years ago, that it would be prudent to retain a record of such activity much of which would have had to have been videoed for these purposes. I remain sceptical that many Members
132 Mr Derek Conway MP
keep such detailed records, other than those who believe they have a particular place in history and must preserve every piece of information they have considered. My ego is not that of that stature.
It will be for others to conclude if detailed work records should have been maintained, however such a conclusion would be at odds with the ruling by the House of Common Commission which has set a four year ceiling on information retention and in this context I refer you to Mr. Speaker’s instruction to the Department of Resources.
2 October 2008
59. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 2 October about your computer records.
As I understand it, the position as far as you are aware is that it is not possible to retrieve your computer records as far back as 2001 to 2004. In any event, it would appear from what you say that your son saved on the PC none of the material he produced: I take it that there would therefore be nothing to retrieve.
In respect of the disc you hold with photographs from the period 2001 to 2004, I wonder whether it is possible for you to identify which or broadly how many of these photographs Henry was likely to have worked on, or if either you or I could ask whether he could do so. My purpose here is simply to see whether it is possible to produce hard evidence of the work on which Henry have was engaged.
Finally, I will be asking for the Department of Resources’ advice on the interpretation of the House of Commons Commission’s four-year ruling to which you refer in the final paragraph of your letter and I am writing to your son about his computer use.
8 October 2008
60. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 14 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 8th October.
At this distance in time it is not possible to identify which of the photographs required Henry’s assistance.
It is not claimed that this activity was a significant aspect of his support.
As they have explained it to me, the Department of Resources interprets the House of Commons Commission four-year ruling as applicable to all records except those relating to salary and pension records.
14 October 2008
61. Letter to Mr Henry Conway from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008
I would be most grateful for your help on clarifying a point which has arisen during the course of my inquiry into the complaint against your father about his employment of you as his research assistant from 2001 to 2004. The point relates to your computer use.
First, your father has told me about the work you did for him in editing photographs which he could use for press releases. When we met on 21 May you told me that you would edit photographs for your father using specialist software and that you would use those for press releases. Your father has sent me a list of photographs retained on disc between 2001 and 2004. I am asking him to help me in identifying those photographs which you were likely to have been working on. He has also told me that you edited these photographs using your personal laptop.
Mr Derek Conway MP 133
I would be very grateful if you could confirm that you used your personal laptop for editing photographs and if you could tell me if you used your personal laptop for any other computer work in support of your father, and if so what it was, and whether any relevant files are retained on the laptop.
Your father has also told me you used the Parliamentary PC in his flat or in his office at the House. Your father has said that you used the PC to produce Word documents, but that none of these documents was saved or filed because he did not require you to do so. The submission would be printed off for him to read. He preferred, however, to receive briefing notes by hand.
I would be grateful if you could help me with your recollection of this. You have told me, and your father confirmed, that your briefing notes and précis were produced usually on one sheet of A4 paper. Sometimes you covered these with a post-it note. Sometimes your précis was a manuscript note stapled to the incoming document. Again, could you confirm that that was the position and give me some idea of what proportion of the briefings and précis you produced were handwritten rather than on the PC. As you know, it is relatively unusual for someone to work on a Word document without routinely saving it. Could you confirm that you did not save any of these documents and let me know why you did not do so?
I have told your father that I am writing to you about your computer use. As with your previous evidence, your response to this letter is likely to be made available to the Committee on Standards and Privileges in any Memorandum I produce and subsequently be published.
I would be most grateful for your further help on this matter. If it were possible to respond within the next two or three weeks, that would be most helpful. If there is any difficulty about any of this, please let me know.
8 October 2008
62. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Henry Conway, 14 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 8th October.
During the latter part of my time at school and in my first year at University I had a laptop with picture editing software. This was particularly relevant for my History of Art A-Level course and for the History of Architecture aspects of my degree course.
In my second year at University my Father was elected and though he was eventually supplied with parliamentary computer equipment, this did not happen immediately and the equipment given to him did not have the software my laptop had, installed.
When I was editing his emails this was necessarily undertaken on parliamentary equipment as they were processed via the PCD/PICT network.
I used my laptop to produce summaries but it was not necessary to save these as they were solely for my Father’s use, were not for circulation to anyone else and therefore it did not occur to me that the more negative connotation you now draw, several years on, would apply.
I hope this helps clarify the position.
14 October 2008
63. Letter to Mr Henry Conway from the Commissioner, 20 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 14 October responding to mine of 8 October about your use of computer equipment in the work you undertook for your father as his research assistant from 2001 to 2004.
It was most helpful to have this. I should make clear that I have not at this stage drawn any conclusion on any of the evidence I have received, including what you have said to me. I thought it right, however, to put the point to you so that you could respond to it.
134 Mr Derek Conway MP
I remain unclear whether all the précis and the research summaries which you produced were produced on a laptop or PC (as you suggest in your letter of 14 October) and then printed out, or whether some of these briefings were hand-written on paper or post-it notes, as suggested previously in the evidence from you and your father. If the answer is that you used both methods, could you give me some rough idea of what proportion of documents were produced using IT and what were hand-written? I am sorry to repeat this question which I asked in my letter of 8 October, but your answer to it would be helpful in me getting an understanding of how the system worked in practice.
Finally, and for the sake of clarity, could you let me know whether the précis and briefings produced with the aid of IT were undertaken only on your laptop, or did you use House of Commons IT equipment for some of these?
I am sorry to have to come back to you on these two matters, and would be very grateful indeed if you could help me with them. A reply within the next two weeks would be much appreciated.
20 October 2008
64. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Henry Conway, 31 October 2008
Thank you for your letter of 20th October concerning the complaint against my Father.
With regard to your specific questions in paragraph three, the work I produced was a mix of research notes, often hand written notes attached to the front of pre-printed reports or tab-markers attached to parts of pre- printed reports with sections for my Father’s attention highlighted.
As these were exclusively for his information it was not considered necessary to produce lengthy formal reports.
At so many years distance it would be impossible to provide an accurate assessment of which bits of work were initiated by my Father and which were provided as a synopsis of incoming reports.
I hope I have been able to clarify that I acted as a filter of incoming reports with emphasis on those relating to my Father’s specific interests and those concerning London and his constituency.
With regard to the equipment used, my use of PCD/PICT supplied equipment tended to be mainly the editing of emails both at the Westminster apartment and his office at the House of Commons.
31 October 2008
65. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 18 September 2008
I would welcome your help on a number of matters in respect of my inquiry into the complaint against Mr Derek Conway in respect of the employment of his son, Mr Henry Conway, as his research assistant from 2001 to 2004.
First, Mr Conway has suggested that it is not right to say that the Department’s pay guidance issued in the autumn of 2001 suggested that research assistants were likely to be graduates. He says that the papers he has from the Department make no reference to this. In the light of this, it would be very helpful if you could clarify the position in respect of the employment of research assistants. In particular, would it be possible to have copies of any guidance available when Mr Henry Conway was appointed in July 2001; the revised guidance issued later in 2001; copies of any other forms or documents which refer to the appointment of research assistants; and your interpretation of the guidance?
Secondly, Mr Conway has suggested that the job description dated 1 July 2001 [WE 11] for Henry Conway which you sent me with your letter of 9 April was a stock job description provided by the then Department of Finance and Administration. I would be grateful if you could confirm that and, if possible, let me have a copy of any stock job description provided by the Department at that time for the post of research assistant.
Mr Derek Conway MP 135
Thirdly, Mr Conway has suggested that he might have written to the Department to request Henry Conway’s initial payment of salary before he signed Form A (secretarial salaries) on 27 November 2001 – which document [WE 18] you sent me with your letter of 15 April. Mr Conway thinks it was possible that he wrote an earlier letter, following which the Department sent him Form A which he completed and returned on 27 November. It would be helpful if you could cast any light on this.
Finally, I would be grateful for help with the bonus and overtime payment made to Henry Conway in 2004. Mr Conway’s letter of 4 March 2004 [WE21] (which you sent me with your letter of 15 April 2008) requests the sum of £2,000 net in addition to the monthly salary. His letter of 15 March 2004 confirmed that he wished an additional sum of £2,000 to be paid from the staffing allowance budget to represent an annual bonus and overtime for additional duties. An official in the DFA has annotated in manuscript on that letter that they had confirmed with the MP the payment of £829.13 overtime. It would be very helpful if you could let me know how both the bonus and overtime were calculated to meet Mr Conway’s wishes that a total sum of £2,000 should be paid to his son. Mr Conway has accepted that he had a conversation with a DFA official about these payments and says that he followed their advice in identifying the gross overtime payment. It would be particularly helpful to know whether the Department has any recollection of the net sum which Mr Conway requested for the overtime payment and how that related to his initial request for a payment of £2,000 net to cover bonus and overtime.
It would be very helpful if you could let me have a response to these outstanding points within the next two weeks. I am most grateful for the Department’s help on this matter.
18 September 2008
66. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member Liaison Services, 4 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 18 September 2008 to [the Director of Operations] in which you raise four further matters concerning the employment of Henry Conway. [The Director] is away from the office now for three weeks and I am therefore responding in his place.
You have asked for comments on the following matters
• Guidance given to Members on employment issues during 2001
• Information about job descriptions available in 2001
• Correspondence about Henry’s employment from Mr Conway, and
• Clarification about the bonus paid to Henry in 2004
In relation to advice given to Members about salaries and job descriptions, I am enclosing letters sent to Members on 11 July and 31 July 2001 from the then Head of the Fees Office, [ ] [WE 67, 68]. These give updates to all Members on the progress on implementing revisions to allowances following the Resolutions of the House dated 5 July 2001.
The letter of 31 July was accompanied by a copy of the job descriptions and pay rates guidance [WE 69] which you will see is the same as that already sent to you with my letter of 9 April this year. As far as the job description for Henry Conway is concerned I can find no evidence that it is a “stock” job description supplied by this Department. I am enclosing a pro-forma job description which is currently used in new starter packs and I am informed that a similar document was in place during 2001, although I cannot be exact about the date when it was introduced. [WE 70]
I can find no correspondence on Henry’s file prior to the Form A being received. It is of course possible that Mr Conway wrote asking about how to set up a new employee and was sent a starter pack, but no such correspondence is on any of our files.
With reference to the bonus and overtime payments paid in March and April 2004 I believe the situation to be as follows.
136 Mr Derek Conway MP
Mr Conway asked for an additional £2,000 (net) to be paid to Henry in March 2004, this was interpreted as a bonus and reduced to £1,499.99 (gross) to stay within the 15% of annual salary rule. A member of the Payroll team then contacted Mr Conway to explain the reduction in payment, following which the sum of £829.13 was paid as overtime. It is not clear from our records why this precise sum was paid; it does not equate to the sum required to match the original request for a net payment of £2,000.
I hope this covers all your additional questions.
67. Extracts from letter to Members from the Head of the Fees Office, 11 July 2001
Dear Member
Introduction
As you will know the Review Body on Senior Salaries Report No 48 Review of Parliamentary Pay and Allowances has been debated by the House. I am writing to you to outline the effects of the House’s decision to accept Chapter 3 of the SSRB Report, as amended, and to offer some initial guidance about the changes as they most directly affect you.
Staffing Provision
Before the House’s decision on 5th July, staffing costs could only be met from the Office Costs Allowance (OCA). For the future, returned Members have the option to continue with the OCA for the whole of the transitional period (which will end on 31 March 2003) if they wish. However, if you are a new Member elected on 7th June you will transfer to the new staffing provision - £70,000 if your constituency is in London, or £60,000 plus an additional £3,500 for each full-time employee based in London for all other Members - with effect from 5th July 2001.
…
Staff Contracts
In the meantime I hope you will bear with us, particularly when you are appointing new staff. If you need to take on new staff immediately, we suggest that you use short-term contracts (model contracts are available now) to allow the Advisory Panel time to finalise the content of the standard contract, job descriptions and pay rates that were recommended in the SSRB Report. Your questions about staff contracts under the new arrangements should be addressed to [ ] or [ ].
…
11 July 2001
68. Extracts from letter to Members from the Head of the Fees Office, 31 July 2001
Dear Member
SENIOR SALARIES REVIEW BODY REFORMS TO MEMBERS’ PAY AND ALLOWANCES: PROGRESS REPORT
I am writing to follow up my earlier letter of 11 July and to report progress with implementing the Resolutions of the House dated 5 July.
…
New arrangements for staffing
Mr Derek Conway MP 137
The Resolutions provided that in due course all Members’ staff should be paid in accordance with approved pay ranges and standard contracts issued by his Department. I attach the pay ranges for Members’ staff which were agreed by the Speaker’s Advisory Panel6. Guidance on pay will be developed further in due course.
I can reassure Members that we will apply the guidance on staffing flexibly during the transitional period.
Members who take on new staff should ensure that they are paid in accordance with the new pay ranges.
Members who have existing staff whose pay is higher or lower than the levels suggested by this guidance are asked to inform the Fees Office []. No other action is required at present. The Resolutions provide for a central fund to top up the salaries of such staff for a transitional period. We will advise further on eligibility when new contracts are published (see below).
New contracts for Members’ staff
The Resolutions provide that there should be standard contracts for Members’ staff. We hope to be able to advise on these later this year. In the meantime, Members who wish to take on new staff are advised to use short term contracts . The Fees Office [ ] can supply standard short term contracts timed to run until the end of the year.
…
Part timers
If you want to employ part timers, please ask the Fees Office to calculate the pay rate.
…
31 July 2001
69. Extracts from Job Descriptions and Pay Rates, Guidance for Members, 31 July 2001
Job descriptions and pay rates - Guidance for Members
Attached is a set of job descriptions based on the work carried out by Hay Management Consultants for the Senior Salaries Review Body Report no 48.
The pay ranges
There is a floor and a ceiling on the pay for each job type. To find out the pay range for a particular member of staff Members should pick the job description which fits best. (It is possible that none of the job descriptions will be an exact fit.) The pay ranges provide scope to fit pay to the needs of the case.
Between the floor and the ceiling of each range, there are no specific intermediate pay points: Members will need to choose an appropriate pay level to meet the particular case. For example, the top end of the pay range allows for experience and good performance to be rewarded, while the bottom end will be appropriate for a less experienced employee. There is also scope to adjust salaries to reflect pay levels locally.
Choosing a pay level
The tables include ranges of recommended starting pay for new employees. We 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 Members 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
6 WE 69
138 Mr Derek Conway MP
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.
Budgeting
Members are advised not to allocate the whole staffing budget initially. When budgeting, they should bear in mind that the staffing budget will have to pay for employers' National Insurance Contributions (very roughly, 10% of gross pay) , plus any overtime or staffing cover not provided under the scheme for Temporary Secretarial Assistance. (However, overtime or emergency staff cover may also be funded out of the Incidental Expenses Provision.) Members should also bear in mind that if in future years they wish to give their staff a pay increase greater than the cost of living, this will have to be funded from within the staffing budget.
Existing staff paid above new pay ranges
If existing staff are currently paid above the pay range appropriate to their job, transitional help may be available from a central budget held by the Department of Finance and Administration.
Bonuses
Members may pay staff bonuses, provided that they can afford these out of the Incidental Expenses Provision or the staffing budget. Bonuses should not exceed 15% of gross annual salary.
…
Research/parliamentary assistants
Research/parliamentary assistants are likely to Pay ranges Recommended starting pay be graduates. They need good research skills, the ability to think analytically, good communication skills and a good understanding of the political environment.
Senior research/parliamentary assistants should
• Undertake research, usually from secondary sources, on complex and difficult subjects
• Analyse, interpret and present the results eg £21,500 £21,500 (provinces) for parliamentary questions, briefing notes for to to committees, articles or press releases £31,000 £25,500 (London)
• Liaise with the political party, lobby groups etc
• Deal with the media
They might also progress some casework and/or deal with a range of correspondence independently
Research/parliamentary assistants should
• Undertake research from readily available sources
Mr Derek Conway MP 139
• Analyse, interpret and present the results eg £11,000 £11,000 (provinces) for parliamentary questions, briefing notes for to to £26,500 committees, articles or press releases £15,000 (London)
• Deal with routine constituency correspondence independently
In addition they might also
• Deal with a range of visitors
• Progress casework by forwarding to other agencies
• Undertake some administrative tasks
*Starting pay outside London is likely to vary considerably with local employment market conditions.
70. Pro forma for job description for Members’ staff
JOB DESCRIPTION
Employee Name:
Job Title:
Reporting to:
Main purpose:
Staff responsibilities:
______
Key responsibilities
•
•
•
140 Mr Derek Conway MP
•
Any other duties related to the post and appropriate to the pay band as directed and agreed by the Member.
______
Employee signature: Date:
71. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 6 November 2008
I have now heard from the Department of Resources about a number of matters on which I consulted them following the oral evidence you gave me on 16 September.
I enclose a copy of my letter to the Department of 18 September [WE 65] and a copy of a reply from the Director of Member Liaison Services of 4 November, together with copies of the annexes to his letter [WE 66- 70.
As you will see, the advice given by the Head of the Fees Office on 11 July 2001 was that, until standard contracts, job descriptions and pay rates were available, any new staff required immediately should use short- term contracts. You will see also in the annex to the letter of 31 July 2001 from the Head of the Fees Office, brief job descriptions for research/parliamentary assistants. As you will see, it states that: “Research/parliamentary assistants are likely to be graduates”. It also sets out the work which is expected of research/parliamentary assistants. The Director notes that he can find no evidence that the job description you prepared for your son was a stock job description supplied by the Department.
The Director of Member Liaison Services also states that he can find no correspondence on your son’s file prior to Form A being received. And it is not clear from the Department's records why £829.13 was established as the overtime figure. The Director notes that it does not equate to the sum required to meet your original request for a net payment of £2,000.
I would welcome your comments on this additional evidence. In particular, it would be helpful:
if you could confirm that your son started work for you on 1 July 2001 and that that was the date when you signed the contract—that is in advance of the Fees Office letter of 11 July;
if you could let me know whether you considered seeking to put your son on a short-term contract in the light of the letter of 11 July 2001 from the Head of the Fees Office; and
whether you accept that your son's job description was not a stock job description provided by the Department and whether, therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that it was drafted by you or within your office; and
whether you accept that from 31 July 2001 the Department's advice was that research assistants were “likely to be graduates”; and
whether you accept on the basis of the evidence that your first request for payment for your son was when you submitted Form A on 27 November 2001.
Mr Derek Conway MP 141
It would be very helpful to have your answers to these specific matters so that I can far as possible clarify the agreed factual issues from all the evidence I have received and identify those which remain uncertain. Any other points you would like to make would of course be very welcome.
Once I have your response, and subject to me having to make any further approaches to the House authorities, I would hope that my inquiries into this complaint will have been completed.
Having reviewed all the evidence, I have concluded that I should prepare a Memorandum for the Committee on Standards and Privileges. You should draw no inferences, however, from this about what my final conclusion is likely to be. After I have prepared this I will show you the factual sections of my Memorandum for any comments you may wish to make on its factual accuracy. I will then prepare my conclusions and submit the full Memorandum to the Committee. I will let you and the complainant know when that full Memorandum is submitted. The Committee Clerk will then let you have a copy of the full Memorandum for any comments you may wish to make on it in advance of it being considered, with any comments you may make, by the Committee.
Thank you again for your help with this matter. I look forward to hearing from you.
6 November 2008
72. Letter to Mr Derek Conway MP from the Commissioner, 18 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 14 November responding to a number of matters which I raised with you in my letter to you of 6 November.
I am grateful for your clarification on a number of these issues. For the avoidance of doubt, your statement that your first instruction to the Department was a written note, and that the form followed at their request, is a firmer recollection of the sequence of events than you gave me when we met on 16 September, when you said that “it may be that I wrote to the Department about the pay before I filled out the Form A”. I will now do a final check with the Department to see whether they can help further in finding your note and if they can let me know when the standardised pay forms were introduced.
On the point in the final paragraph in your letter, it would help avoid any misunderstanding on my part if you could be a little more specific about how paragraph 4 of the letter of 4 November from the Director of Member Liaison Services contradicts that by the Director of Operations in paragraph 8 of his letter of 9 September: I am not aware of a letter of 9 September. In any event, it would help if you could confirm the identify of the letter and the contradiction you see in it.
I do want to complete work on this as soon as possible, so if you can let me have a reply within the next week or so, that would be most helpful. I am very grateful for the prompt responses you have been sending me.
18 November 2008
73. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 21 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 18th November.
With regard to paragraph two, this is a recollection on my part and indeed a likelihood; though as you know from past evidence I do not have a copy of the original information, only the Contract of Employment and Job Description.
I note that the Department cannot state factually (John Lyon evidence session 16 Sept 08…) the precise date, therefore the contractual date is the only firm evidence before you.
With regard to your paragraph three, the [Director of Operations’] letter to which I refer is dated 9th April (not September) 2008 where, in paragraph 8, he makes the point that Henry’s Contract, which as you know
142 Mr Derek Conway MP
incorporates the Job Description, had “largely followed the model recommended” and that is a different emphasis to [the Director of Member Liaison Services’] response of 4th December, paragraph 4.
I very much hope this clarifies matters and enables you to conclude your investigation this month.
21 November 2008
74. Letter to the Director of Operations, Department of Resources, from the Commissioner, 8 October 2008
I would welcome your help on one matter which Mr Conway has raised during the course of my inquiry into the complaint against him about the employment of his son, Mr Henry Conway.
In a letter to me of 11 March (which I copied to [the Acting Director]) with my letter of 12 March) Mr Conway said:
“Mr Walker, Director of the Resources Department, confirmed to me on 10th March 2008 that the House of Commons Commission in 2002 instructed that personal records should be kept for only the three years preceding the current year, except for those relating to pensions. I am being asked to produce records from up to seven years ago and I do not have them as I would not have kept a record of what hours Henry, or any other member of staff, spent at each location. Parliamentary officials, presumably from the Department of Resources were quoted in the Daily Mail edition of 3 March 2008 stating that the destruction of documents was ‘routine’. The House required Members to clear all files and papers from the Parliamentary estate when dissolution took place for the 2005 General Election, which post-dated Henry’s part-time employment.”
In a letter to me of 2 October, Mr Conway has written as follows:
“It will be for others to conclude if detailed work records should have been maintained, however such a conclusion would be at odds with the ruling by the House of Commons Commission which has set a four year ceiling on information retention and in this context I refer you to Mr Speaker’s instruction to the Department of Resources.”
In view of the emphasis which Mr Conway has put on this, it would be helpful if you could let me have further information about the reported ruling by the House of Commons Commission and for confirmation of its effect on the advice you give Members about the retention of their employment and other records.
If you could let me have a response to this within the next two weeks, I would be most grateful.
8 October 2008
75. Letter to the Commissioner from the Director of Member Liaison Services, 10 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 8 October which has been passed to me for a response in [the Director of Operations’] absence.
You have asked for information about advice given to Members on the retention of records. You also refer to a decision of the House of Commons Commission in 2002 about the retention of personal records.
The House of Commons Commission ruling mentioned refers to the records that the House of Commons keep; specifically about staff of the House but also our records of payments to and on behalf of Members of Parliament. This guidance has subsequently been formalised in the Parliamentary Archives document “Authorised Records Disposal Practice” a copy of which I enclose for your information. I draw your attention to pages 9 and 12 which advise that signed contracts of employment should be destroyed 6 years after the termination of employment and authorisation to pay salaries should be destroyed three years after the end of the financial year issued.
Mr Derek Conway MP 143
Whilst this would be a good rule of thumb for Members, this Department has never issued specific or formalised guidance to them on the retention of their own personnel records, although advice may be given from time to time to individual Members about specific personnel matters (e.g. on absence record keeping). We do however, provide information about the retention of case work files and data protection issues which is contained in the booklet Advice for Members’ offices.
For clarification, I also enclose a copy of the minute of the House of Commons Commission of 21 October 2002 where the matter of record retention was discussed. I hope this fully addresses the issues you raise.
10 November 2008
76. Letter to the Commissioner from Mr Derek Conway MP, 13 November 2008
Thank you for your letter of 11th November and the enclosures concerning the Commission’s instruction on record keeping to the Department of Resources and its predecessor departments.
I accept that the Commission’s ruling was to the departments under its direction rather than an edict to Members; however the principle, I contend, remains the same in that it is unreasonable to expect a Member to retain records for a longer period than the officials of the House.
On 21st October 2002 the Commission resolved that records be kept for three years after transaction.
In June 2004 the Members’ Services Authorised Records Disposal Practice instruction to officials from the then Clerk of the House, R. B. Sands, states that on advice from HM Inland Revenue and the National Audit Office, three years should apply. For matters as minor as “guest lists” they instruct one month.
In the Advice for Members’ offices, Principle 5, it specifically states that there is NO REQUIREMENT to keep files beyond the life of a Parliament.
Your enquiry into matters over seven years distant relates to more than a Parliament ago and therefore the points I have repeatedly made to you during the course of your investigation have been substantiated by the production of these documents.
13 November 2008
144 Mr Derek Conway MP
Appendix 2: Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from Mr Derek Conway MP, 16 January 2009
Complaint by Duncan Borrowman
I would be grateful if your Committee could consider this submission in response to John Lyon’s report.
I am glad the Commissioner accepts, given so much independent corroboration, that there was a genuine need for the work Henry undertook, that he was able and qualified for the job and that he was doing the job and rejects three of the four grounds for complaint.
Therefore, I focus on his Conclusions relating to salary. The Commissioner confuses the purpose of the pay-range grades, which relate to the duties required and the pay- level, which relates to the suitability and performance of the individual. His observation that the duties did not vary greatly from the start to the end of employment is used as a template for the pay-level whereas that is a function of the pay-range grade.
Section 69 of the Written Evidence gives extracts of the Department’s Guidance 31st July 2001(issued after Henry commenced employment) and is the document upon which the Commissioner has based his misunderstanding of the purpose of grades/levels and as a result his erroneous assessment. The advice under Pay Ranges illustrates the Commissioner’s misunderstanding. It makes clear that the pay range grades ‘may not be an exact fit for the job description’ and specifically states that the top end of the pay range grade ‘allows for experience and good performance’.
The two pay-range grades concerned are stated as Senior research/parliamentary assistant and Research/parliamentary assistant. The Commissioner emphasises the research aspects, but the pay-range grade detail of likely duties as set out by the Department is less restrictive than the Commissioner’s interpretation.
Within the senior research/parliamentary assistant grade the Department lists liaising/independent correspondence and media amongst the likely duties. Henry’s work organising foreign interest meetings (for which photographic evidence was accepted by the Commissioner), would come within the senior researcher/parliamentary assistant description of liaising with groups.
The independent editing and responding to emails would come within the independent correspondence category and his assessment and preparation of photographs for the local newspapers would come under the media description.
Mr Derek Conway MP 145
I accept his more basic administrative support clearly came within the scope of the lower pay-range grade of researcher/parliamentary assistant, but do not agree that the majority of his duties were menial tasks such as mail opening and sorting.
The Department foresaw this possible cross-over in the demands of a wide range of functions and explained in its guidance that job descriptions and pay-range grades would not be an exact fit.
Given the problem of duties cutting across two pay-range grades, I contend it was not unreasonable to have set Henry’s first year salary at £8,000pa or 11% above the entry starting point of the lowest pay-range grade, in line with the Department’s advice on choosing a pay-level. The entry point is not given a timescale but the Commissioner concludes that the entry-point should have applied for the ensuing 39 months, illustrating his misunderstanding of the grades/levels function.
The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development divides pay-range floor-to-ceiling barriers into quartiles. In Henry’s case he was at the low end of the third quartile of the lowest grade and -25% below the entry point of the bottom quartile of the senior grade.
The Commissioner then concludes that as the nature of the work did not appreciably alter, the new employee entry point of the lowest scale should have continued for the ensuing 39 months of employment; however the Department advises Members that increasing the entry point within the pay-range grade should allow for experience and good performance. I contend that I acted properly in reflecting Henry’s ongoing experience and good performance in the pay-level set.
Section 16 in the Written Evidence portion of the Report sets out the schedule of payments to Henry, though the Committee will note they are annualised and notional rather than actual payments, as years one and four were part-years of 9 months and 6 months respectively.
If the Committee is minded to deny all accepted personnel management practice and accept the Commissioner’s conclusion that Henry should have been on the starting pay- level for the duration of his employment, then his actual salary was £31,000 over 39 months, an average of £795 a month, annually £9,538 which, for a full-time equivalent, would be £19,076. Whilst the Committee would not apply age discrimination to their considerations, for three quarters of this period he was in his twenties and for over a third a graduate.
National Statistics Office figures for 2004 show that the inner-London average salary was £31,339 so Henry’s annualised equivalent would not have been excessive by comparison.
146 Mr Derek Conway MP
Mr. Lyon’s perverse conclusion is at odds with the Department’s advice to Members, runs contrary to all known personnel management practice and defies logic and fairness. It was reached because the Commissioner repeatedly confuses pay-range (job required) with pay-level (individual’s performance). Notwithstanding this confusion, how could it be fair to endorse his contention that someone at the commencement of employment and not a graduate is at the same level of competence as someone after two years in post and a graduate?
Would the Committee expect any other Members’ employee, related or otherwise or employed directly by the House, to be on exactly the same pay level on day one of employment as four years later, as the Commissioner concludes?
The Committee will also, no doubt, bear in mind that if it agrees with the Commissioner’s conclusion on pay-level within pay-range grades, it will open every single Member to challenge on whether their staffer, related or otherwise, is on the correct entry-point, regardless of length of service and performance.
Should the Committee be minded to take a more extreme position, I hope it will bear in mind that my parliamentary career has been brought to an unexpected halt some ten years earlier than could have been reasonably expected. My earned income halved when I returned to the House and the consequences for my pension provision are considerable. As I shall be three years short of sixty but with over the minimum twenty years service when my term ends, the pension already attained will be reduced by 16.4% each year until my death and subsequently for my widow. The penalty to date will apply until my last breath and is disproportionate to the margin of judgement which has been applied with the hindsight of several years.
In his letter to the Commissioner of 9th April 2008 (Section 15 Written Evidence) the Director of Resources states categorically I should make clear that all payments to Henry Conway were within the rules set out in the Green Book and it is my submission to the Committee that I acted within the Guidance issued to Members and that the pay-level set was a fair reward for the duties performed and witnessed by others. The Committee has not always endorsed the Commissioner’s conclusions (Dr. John Reid MP) and therefore I ask it to reject conclusion 202 and that on all four counts, the complaint be dismissed.
I shall not seek to prolong the Committee’s consideration of this matter by seeking to give oral evidence.
Mr Derek Conway MP 147
Formal minutes
Tuesday 27 January 2009
Members present:
Sir George Young, in the Chair
Mr Kevin Barron Mr Chris Mullin Mr David Curry The Hon Nicholas Soames Nick Harvey Mr Paddy Tipping Mr Elfyn Llwyd Dr Alan Whitehead
Draft Report [Mr Derek Conway], proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 3 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 4 to 15 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 16 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 17 to 19 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 20 read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraph 21 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 22 read, amended and agreed to.
Annex read, amended and agreed to.
Two Papers were ordered to be appended to the Report.
Resolved, That the Report, as amended, be the Third Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.
[Adjourned till Tuesday 10 February 2009 at 9.45 am