Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Labour MP suspended for week

Anthony Bevins
Tuesday 29 July 1997 23:02 BST
Comments

A humbling public apology, to be followed by a one-week suspension from the Commons, was demanded as punishment for a rule-breaking Labour MP last night.

In its first report on the activities of a serving MP, the new Parliament's Committee on Standards and Privileges urged the punishment for Robert Wareing, Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, after it decided that he had made a false declaration about a company shareholding.

Mr Wareing set up a company called Robert Wareing Limited, which in March 1994 received a pounds 6,000 retainer from another company, Metta Trading, previously under the control of "a person connected with Serbia and Montenegro for the purposes of UN sanctions".

When he was asked to register his interests in 1994, Mr Wareing declared that he had no relevant shareholdings in any public or private company, and yesterday's report said: "Mr Wareing made a false declaration ... We find Mr Wareing's conduct wrong."

Robert Sheldon, Labour chairman of the committee, said last night: "The perception of MPs must be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the end of the last Parliament."

The all-party committee reached its finding just before lunch yesterday, and rushed out a report less than six hours later - to make it possible for Mr Wareing to deliver his apology before the House rises for its Summer break tommorrow.

If that happens, the suspension would take effect for the first week after the House returns, on 27 October.

The suspension would be the first since two Tory MPs were suspended for two weeks and a month in April 1995 for taking cash for questions. One week's suspension would mean the loss of about pounds 827 in pay.

Pending the outcome of the Commons investigation, Mr Wareing was suspended from the Labour whip in the Commons. But a party spokes-man said last night that Labour would want to consider its own reaction to the evidence - and the party could yet decide to take stronger action than the House.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in