Conor Burns: Tory minister resigns after attempting to intimidate member of public

Conservative MP Conor Burns has resigned as a government minister after the Commons standards watchdog recommended a seven-day suspension from parliament for abusing his privileged position in an attempt to intimidate a member of the public.

An investigation by the Commons Standards Commissioner found that the Bournemouth West MP used House of Commons notepaper to write to an individual who was in dispute with his father over the repayment of a loan, and warned that he could raise the matter in parliament.

Mr Burns is a close ally of Boris Johnson, serving as his parliamentary private secretary when he was foreign secretary, and was appointed minister of state for trade policy on the PM’s arrival at 10 Downing Street last July.

A Number 10 spokesman said: “Conor Burns has resigned as minister of state for international trade following a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A replacement will be announced in due course.”

In a damning response to Ms Stone’s investigation, the Commons Committee on Standards said the MP had “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”.

The committee found 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 … misleadingly implied that his conduct had the support of the House authorities”.

The committee – which includes lay members as well as MPs – took the highly unusual step of recommending a seven-day suspension, which is almost certain to be upheld by the Commons.

In a tweet, Mr Burns said: “With deep regret I have decided to resign as Minister of State for International Trade. Boris Johnson will continue to have my wholehearted support from the backbenches.”

Only scant details are given in today’s report of the financial dispute in which Mr Burns intervened.

The standards commissioner said she was approached by the complainant – who is not identified – over a letter on Commons headed notepaper received in February last year.

In it, Mr Burns stated that his father had made extensive attempts over a period of years to reach a settlement on a company’s repayment of a loan but was reluctant to take legal proceedings “because of age and family sensitivity”.

Urging the company to respond to his father’s demands, he added: “Failure to do so will ensure my involvement to secure the return of the money owed to my father.”

And he warned: “I am acutely aware that my role in the public eye could well attract interest especially if I were to use parliamentary privilege to raise the case (on which I have taken advice from the House authorities).”

In what the commissioner said was an apparent reference to the complainant’s former role as a senior public servant, he added: “I am also conscious that your high profile role outside [the company] could well add to that attention.”

In a submission to the commissioner’s inquiry, Mr Burns said he believed he was adhering with parliamentary rules in using the notepaper.

“My letter was one written by a son which is very concerned at the stress and distress that the complainant’s repeated refusal to engage of the subject has caused to a man in his late 70s. If the charge is being a caring son, I would accept it,” he said.

The commissioner found that Mr Burns’ use of Commons notepaper in his correspondence with the complainant appeared “more deliberate than accidental”.

The report said: “The Commissioner concludes that Mr Burns should have realised that the words used in his letter would be received as a threat, and on the balance of probabilities she thinks that that was Mr Burns’ intention.

“Also on the balance of probabilities, she considers that Mr Burns’ use of the crowned portcullis ‘was intended to add weight to the threat that he would speak about [the complainant] in a forum where [the complainant] would not have a right of reply’.”

The commissioner also revealed that during the course of the inquiry, Mr Burns suggested that it would be “ironic” if the complaint led to the revelation of details of the dispute which the complainant had previously attempted to keep concealed. Ms Stone said this suggestion was not “respectful of the standards system of the House”.

Stating that it would be possible for the MP to give an apology without revealing details of the dispute, she added: “Mr Burns’ conduct in this matter does not reflect well on him personally.

“However, I think his conduct has a wider impact. It 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. That Mr Burns has not acted on his threat to use parliamentary privilege will do little to dispel that belief.”

Ms Stone’s report was completed last October but publication was delayed by the general election.

Mr Burns apologised to committee in a letter in March, in which he said: “As I have openly acknowledged, on reflection, I absolutely should not have written to the complainant in the terms I did or used House stationery to do so. I am sorry I did so and regret it.”

He added: “My motivation was to try and get the company to engage with my father on a long running dispute. To this day they have not done so and my father is taking court action. This has had a significant negative impact on his health.

“At the time I wrote I was under a huge amount of personal stress as I explained to the Commissioner privately.

“It has been very distressing to me that I have added to my elderly father’s worries. To be asked every week by him if there is news on the inquiry has been very hard to take.

“I profoundly regret involving myself in this in any way and if I could turn the clock back I would not have done it.“

A second Tory minister, Greg Hands, was told to apologise after admitting to using free Commons stationery and postage worth a total of around £4,500 to send a newsletter to constituents in his Hammersmith and Fulham seat.

The standards committee noted that the international trade minister initially agreed to issue an apology, acknowledge he had breached Westminster rules and pay for the mailshot. However, a few days later he withdrew his offer.

The committee noted that his move came shortly after the prime minister called a general election and said that “he may well have been motivated by the desire to avoid the embarrassment of having to make a public apology for breaking parliamentary rules during an election campaign”.

In a report upholding Ms Stone’s finding that Mr Hands had breached the rules, the committee said he should make a personal statement of apology to the Commons, not only for his breach but also for his “inappropriate conduct” in forcing a delay to the conclusion of his case.