ONE OF Boris Johnson's closest allies has resigned from the government after he was found guilty of trying to use parliamentary privilege to “intimidate a member of the public” in a row over debt.
Conor Burns, Minister of State for International Trade, faces a seven day ban from the Commons following his intervention in a dispute over a loan reypayment beteween with a company and his father.
The probe into Burns was kicked off following a complaint he had used House stationary to deal with a purely personal family interest.
In a letter on Commons headed notepaper, Burns seemingly suggested he would use parliamentary privilege to raise the case in the House.
That left the person who received the letter with the implication that the complainant could avoid this “potentially unpleasant experience” by helping secure a loan repayment.
In the letter he referred to parliamentary privilege, stating “my role in the public eye could well attract interest especially if I were to use parliamentary privilege to raise the case”.
The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said this was a breach of the rules, as the letter to the complainant was concerned solely with a personal financial situation and was not sent in support of his parliamentary activities.
She also concluded that Burns “put personal interest before the public interest by suggesting that he would take advantage of his public office to pursue his father's financial dispute”.
She said his actions “gives fuel to the belief that Members are able and willing to use the privileges accorded them by their membership of the House to benefit their own personal interests”.
In a letter to the Committee on Standards, Burns apologised for his behaviour saying “I absolutely should not have written to the complainant in the terms I did or used House stationary to do so”.
The Committee said that the MP had been under a considerable degree of personal stress, but they said the apology came at the end of a process in which he had "initially argued he had acted within the rules, and that he had persisted in making ill-disguised threats to use his privileged position as a Member to pursue his family interests, even after the Commissioner had informed him that this was a serious breach of the rules."
The Committee’s overall conclusion was "that Mr Burns used his parliamentary position in an attempt to intimidate a member of the public into doing as Mr Burns wished, in a dispute relating to purely private family interests which had no connection with Mr Burns’ parliamentary duties, that he persisted in making veiled threats to use parliamentary privilege to further his family’s interests even during the course of the Commissioner’s investigation, and that he misleadingly implied that his conduct had the support of the House authorities."
They called for Burns to be "suspended from the service of the House for seven days."
They also recommend he apologise in writing to the House by way of a letter to the Speaker, and to the complainant as the injured party.
Kate Green, the MP who chairs the committee, said: “The Committee regrets the time taken to bring this matter to a conclusion. Both the Commissioner and the Committee are however aware of the importance of proceeding according to due process, which sometimes extends the duration of an investigation, as a result of giving the parties to a complaint full opportunity to provide evidence or to comment on the factual accuracy of draft material.
"In this case, the delay was also due to events beyond the control of the Commissioner or the Committee, such as the general election campaign, the time taken to re-appoint the Committee afterwards, and the impact of the coronavirus lockdown.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel