House of Commons - Mr Derek Conway MP - Standards and Privileges Committee

Mr Derek Conway MP - Standards and Privileges Committee Contents

WRITTEN EVIDENCE RECEIVED BY THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR STANDARDS

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.

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.

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 preprinted 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.

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.

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

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 Panel[139]. 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 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

*Starting pay outside London is likely to vary considerably with local employment market conditions.

70. Pro forma for job description for Members' staff

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.

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 18^th 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 9^th April (not September) 2008 where, in paragraph 8, he makes the point that Henry's Contract, which as you know 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 4^th 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 10^th 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.

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.