The Standards and Privileges committee of the House of Commons has this morning published a new report into Derek Conway, the MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who lost the Tory whip last year over his use of Commons allowances to pay his son for work of which no evidence could be produced. He was first rebuked by the Standards committee one year ago this week.
With publication of this new report, Mr Conway, who now sits as an Independent and will stand down at the next election, has been told to pay back a further £3,757 and apologise to the Commons.
Jonathan Isaby
There should be a by-election.
I'm told Conway hardly turns up to the Commons now.
Posted by: Westminster Wolf | January 29, 2009 at 11:18
Good. This man is a disgrace.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 29, 2009 at 11:23
The Old Bexley and Sidcup Association has been very unlucky [and unwise] in its choice of its last two members, although I believe that Mr Conway's predecessor spent more time in Salisbury and China.
Thankfully the stable will be cleansed with their excellent choice of James Brokenshire MP, whom unlike his two predecessors sees it as his dutry to serve his constituents, not himself.
Posted by: London Tory | January 29, 2009 at 11:28
No by-election!
Our candidate is James Brokenshire MP. His constituency is vanishing in the boundry changes. So we'd have to have a by-election in his current seat. You see the problems.
Posted by: Conand | January 29, 2009 at 11:30
I do Conand but I'm thinking of Mr Conway's poor constituents.
Posted by: Westminster Wolf | January 29, 2009 at 11:37
A further £3,757? My, my, that will be a hardship for him.
If this money was taken under false pretences, the man should be prosecuted.
Posted by: Deborah | January 29, 2009 at 11:44
But he is still drawing an MP's salary and expenses. That is the real disgrace.
Posted by: DCMX | January 29, 2009 at 11:47
At what point should the police become involved?
Posted by: Andy H | January 29, 2009 at 11:55
Conway should be charged with fraudulent conversion. He should go to prison. All this wrist slapping says as much about the system as it does to about these freeloading thieves for that is what they are.
When Oh when will Westminster stand back and take a good hard look at themselves.
Nevertheless with publication of receipts for expenses there should be two happy consequences:
1 Level of expenses will fall
2 The Margaret Beckett type of claim will disappear
Posted by: griswold | January 29, 2009 at 11:57
This man and certain members of his family have committed criminal offences.
People in any other job would have been taken to court.
Why do M.P,s get away with it.
Posted by: ken from glos | January 29, 2009 at 12:04
Imho, Conway could of been investigated by police to see if there was evidence of him obtaining money by deception (what was the report by the HoC all about then). This could have meant that Conway's office be searched and computer seized. Fortunately for Conway MP's can quote the "Glorious Revolution" and the overweening King Charles 1 as to why their "privileges" must be preserved. I expect the Tories to call for a police investigation - surely? (in your dreams)
Posted by: Dontmakemelaugh in Oz Down Under | January 29, 2009 at 12:11
I agree with most of the previous comments - its not harsh enough. When will the police be involved? Why isn't he losing his pension etc?
I think it is really for his constituents to decide on the by-election issue... If they want him to go, and can get him to do so...
At the very least, any income he gets from parliament should go directly to local causes and not into his pocket.
I hope the front bench are taking notice of how strongly the public object to corruption - especially when it is done by somone who is supposed to be on our side - it makes us all look like hypocrites (which would make us no better than labour).
Posted by: pp | January 29, 2009 at 12:13
Good post ken from glos. Agree entirely.
Posted by: Malcolm Dunn | January 29, 2009 at 12:13
I don't know how many of us up north are too surprised at this turnout. Derek always was a bit of an political operator and opportunist. Perhaps things finally caought up with him.
At one point there were a series of articles about the self-styled 'North East's top tory' in the local papers, and how he allegedly dumped his then girlfriend for political expediency.
I remember the arrogance of the man when he got the Shrewsbury seat.
At a meeting of Northern Area Young Conservatives he bragged how he suddenly converted to being a supporter of fox-hunting (not much of that happened in Gateshead) when he found out that one of the selection committee was the grand pooh-ba of the local hunt. He said that if he lost Shrewsbury, we might as well all go home - I suppose he was right on that count.
From that moment I thought his career would eventualy end in tears. I didn't think it would take a quarter of a century though.
He should go. As he doesn't take the whip, I can't see how he can be forced out though. Unfair on the selected candidate for the next election though.
Posted by: Anon2 | January 29, 2009 at 12:26
Want to know if anything official is happening - you only have to ask - isn't freedom of information wonderful?...
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/mps_abuse_of_expenses_derek_conw#outgoing-11686
Posted by: pp | January 29, 2009 at 12:46
A lot of Mr Conway's constituents voted BNP last week in a local council election - they missed getting their man elected by 8 votes.
Something is certainly happening in that constituency and I'm not sure what it is.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | January 29, 2009 at 14:04
Anon2 - your acccount rings true. I have heard of the dislike for him in the North East from others.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | January 29, 2009 at 14:14
The thing a lot of you right-wingers want to remember is that if David Davis had become leader Derek Conway would have become a leading member of the Shadow cabinet.
Wouldn`t have done a lot for the party`s fortunes.
Posted by: Jack Stone | January 29, 2009 at 14:49
"The thing a lot of you right-wingers want to remember is that if David Davis had become leader Derek Conway would have become a leading member of the Shadow cabinet." - Stone.
And your evidence for that?
Posted by: Super Blue | January 29, 2009 at 15:56
If the greedy so-and-so had paid his sons out of his own pocket (which I expect he could have afforded to do) he would still have a political career ahead of him.
I wonder how widespread the rumours were in the Westminster village about this matter? I'd be surprised if came as a complete shock to a lot of party officials - no slur intended but I would have thought some would have thought it odd.
Posted by: Anon2 | January 29, 2009 at 16:11
Super Blue,
I thought it was well-known that Conway was a long-time supporter and ally of Davis. It was Conway who organised the letters calling for IDS to stand down, and who went public with it. The plan was for Davis to assume the leadership, but he was outmaneuvered by Howard and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet. He who wields the knife cannot wear the crown and all that...
Posted by: Adam in London | January 29, 2009 at 16:24
Superbore. You know full well that Conway was a leading Davis advisor and that he would have been in the cabinet if Davis had won the election.
For god sake take your head out of the sand!!!
Posted by: Jack Stone | January 29, 2009 at 16:40
I am a member of the Old Bexley and Sidcup Association, and Bexley Conservative Future. I live in Sidcup and go to school in Old Bexley. Derek Conway has caused us problems with regard to his conduct, but times will soon change when we get James Brokenshire elected. He is a fantastic person, and a good parliamentarian.
In response to Lindsay Jenkins at 14.04, the by-election was in east wickham ward, only a small part of the Constituency. The BNP campaigned hard in the area, but we still beat them, even if only by 8 votes, to get Steven Hall elected. Considering the BNP once had their hq in Welling, just next door, it is not surprising that they attempted to try and win the seat, but we managed to stop them.
Posted by: AdamR | January 29, 2009 at 17:48
£3,757 is not a rebuke...
Posted by: Ian Olive | January 29, 2009 at 18:28
As someone who fully believes in the rule of law, these measures do not go far enough and are another example of members of parliament receiving privileges above and beyond that of ordinary citizens. Mr Conway should face a public prosecution and be immediately expelled from the commons without pay - triggering a by-election.
Posted by: Felix Bungay | January 29, 2009 at 18:41
"Mr Conway, who now sits as an Independent and will stand down at the next election, has been told to pay back a further £3,757 and apologise to the Commons."
He's still taken money for being an MP?
Of course he is. He also stood as a Conservative, so why has he not gone?
£3,757 is peanuts when you consider the damage he has done. Rather than hanging on, screwing every last penny from the state an honorable man would have resigned his seat.
Clearly not a man of honour.
Posted by: The Decon Pile's | January 29, 2009 at 19:51
"Mr Conway should face a public prosecution and be immediately expelled from the commons without pay - triggering a by-election."
exactly
Posted by: The Decon Pile's | January 29, 2009 at 19:52
"when we get James Brokenshire elected. He is a fantastic person, and a good parliamentarian.
Posted by: AdamR"
Unfortunately he'll need to be using a lot of his talents to counteract the Conway legacy. I'm sure he'll do well, but it's a bit tough on him having this handicap before the race starts properly...
Posted by: Anon2 | January 29, 2009 at 20:33
And how come parliamentarians have the bare faced cheek to claim they did wrong because rules are complicated/did not understand/all a mistake/too busy/needs modernising/etc.
Tebbit was right - the institutions of parliament were good for hundreds of years and still are in parts, but when the members are bad what needs changing are the MPs and Peers. Tinkering by Blair-Brown has ruined many an institution for the short term and petty benefit of their chums.
More rules would simply give bureaucrats more power over MPs or Peers and wash past sins under the carpet. More rules will not stop dishonest chancers from behaving accordingly.
Is there any chance of a clear and vigorous response from the opposition front bench this time, or have they some more skeletons to hide? Why is the business of the house not being disrupted until Brown does the decent thing over this?
Posted by: andrew Smith | January 29, 2009 at 20:50
I makes me sick when I see those silly TV adverts about "Benefits Cheats" then read that a far bigger cheat on the public purse such as this gets away so lightly. To think that if some man on the dole painted my flat or some unemployed girl came to my house to do my hair and were caught they would be made to pay back the money claimed and possibly fined heavily or even jailed.
Conway should have been made to stand down as soon as he was caught. If that meant finding another seat for the excellent James Brokenshire I am sure someone in a safe seat would have been willing to take a Peerage and make way for him at the next General Election.
Posted by: Steve Foley | January 29, 2009 at 22:10
Adam and Stone-Drone,
I am perfectly aware that Conway backed DD but he is of advanced age. Anyone in a Davis Shadow Cabinet who isn't in Cameron's would be a great deal younger. Conway would have been returned to the Whips' Office - it is a hundred times more likely than "senior Shadow Cabinet" rank..
Posted by: Super Blue | January 29, 2009 at 22:22
Furthermore, Brown could end Derek Conway's tenure today, if he wanted, by calling a General Election.
Posted by: Super Blue | January 31, 2009 at 09:19
The Conservatives should make a law when next in government that MPs who cross the floor or lose the whip (that is, break their contract), they have to quit and go back to their voters to decide on their future. If the voters hire them, it should be up to the voters to decide whether to fire them.
Posted by: eugene | January 31, 2009 at 09:59