Smash hit

The committee had been amazed that, "after three years and a substantial amount of expenditure", there had been no independent evidence of any work that Freddie Conway had actually performed.

He said Mr Conway had admitted failing to keep adequate records and it was common ground that bonus payments had been made exceeding the authorised ceiling. The pay was also excessive, on an approved salary scale for the job ranging from £12,184 to £29,353.

“Freddie Conway was just 19, had just left school following his A-levels and had no experience. Guidance would have suggested a salary at or close to ... £16,614 full time. Yet his father, by his own admission, took no account of this and paid him the full time equivalent of £25,970 ... an improper use of the allowance.”

Sir George said that the report had focused solely on the younger son, but confirmed that since then there had been complaints about Mr Conway's employment of his elder son, Henry, which the parliamentary commissioner for standards would now be considering.

Labour MP Frank Field questioned whether Parliament's punishment was adequate. He told MPs: “If this example of what I would see as embezzlement had occurred in the refreshment department on this scale, we would have expected that person to leave the employment of this establishment on that day. I believe we should treat ourselves in a similar manner.”

Sir George defended the handling of the case, saying the committee was satisfied on the evidence before it that reporting the issue to the House, rather than referring it to the police, was the right way forward.

He defended the committee’s procedures as “fair and transparent,” and said that the case had been approached just like any other.

“Over the past few days my committee has been accused of being both a kangaroo court and a gentleman’s club. Both accusations are wide of the mark,” said Mr Young.

“Having chaired the committee since 2001 I can testify to the fact that the committee approaches the task of judging colleagues conscientiously and in an entirely non-partisan way.”

On the issue of whether MPs should be allowed to continue employing relatives, he said: “I employ a member of my family who is remunerated out of my parliamentary allowance.

“That is a debate for another day, along with a debate about what steps the House needs to take to address the reputational damage done by this case.”

This morning, Downing Street backed calls for greater transparency in the way MPs claim expenses and allowances, although it stopped short of backing specific proposals to name all MPs’ staff.

Repeated attempts in the past to force disclosure of the names of MPs’ staff have been blocked.

Mr Brown’s spokesman said today: “The Prime Minister agrees with Jack Straw (the Justice Secretary) that there should be greater transparency over MPs’ expenses. Exactly how this should be achieved is, of course, a matter for the House authorities to consider.”

During a visit to Wandsworth Prison today Mr Straw said: “I’ve never understood for the life of me why MPs are not required to say who they employ.”

He said many MPs employed spouses or children who worked “very hard” for them. But he added: “What’s important is the public should know about this. After all, we are spending public money on providing a public service. Of course people should know.”

Sir Christopher Kelly, chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, called yesterday for more transparency in MPs’ use of allowances.

In the next few weeks MPs may consider proposals for the National Audit Office to make spot checks on a random sample of MPs’ expense and allowances claims.

Times Recommends

• Postmen: We bind the nation together
• Tewkesbury: when the memories flood back
• Cast Offs actress: I’m happy that my face fits