Corruption or impropriety

15.28The acceptance by a Member of either House of a bribe to influence them in their conduct as a Member, or of any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the promotion of or opposition to any bill, resolution, matter or thing submitted or intended to be submitted to either House, or to a committee, is a contempt. Any person who is found to have offered such a corrupt consideration is also in contempt.1 A transaction of this character is both a gross affront to the dignity of the House concerned and an attempt to pervert the parliamentary process implicit in Members' free discharge of their duties to the House and (in the case of the Commons) to the electorate.2 The adoption by both Houses of Codes of Conduct for their Members, and the development of new procedures and structures for enforcing compliance with these Codes have, however, considerably altered the approach taken by both Houses to the punishment of offences of this kind.

Instances where the House of Commons or one of its committees has considered allegations of the offer of a bribe to a Member or their acceptance are not common, and many are some time in the past.3 There were only a limited number of cases in the twentieth century.4 (For fuller discussion of recent developments and current procedure in connection with standards and Members' interests, the Code of Conduct and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, see Chapter 5. For historical background, see Erskine May (23rd edn, 2004), p 134 ff and (24th edn, 2011), p 254 ff.)

Footnotes

  1. 1. See House of Commons 2008–09, Code of Conduct, together with the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members, HC 735. The Commons resolved in 1695 that ‘the offer of money or other advantage to any Member of Parliament for the promoting of any matter whatsoever, depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is a high crime and misdemeanour’ (CJ (1693–97) 331).
  2. 2. Members of the Commons found guilty of such offences have been expelled (CJ (1667–87) 24; ibid (1693–97) 274, 275, 277, 651, 689, 693 and 5 Parl Hist 900–10 (Speaker Sir John Trevor; and CJ (1693–97) 283 and 5 Parl Hist 911 (the Chairman of a committee)); or committed (CJ (1693–97) 236 and 5 Parl Hist 886). In 1947–48, a Member was expelled and another reprimanded for conduct which, though not characterised as a contempt, was considered by the House to be dishonourable and deserving to be severely punished (CJ (1947–48) 22, 23).
  3. 3. See CJ (1697–99) 528; ibid (1702–04) 480; ibid (1711–14) 493, 494, 498; ibid (1718–21) 541, 542; ibid (1745–50) 148, 154. It has also been declared that it is a contempt for a Member of the Commons to enter into an agreement with another person to advocate the claims of that person in the House for pecuniary reward, see CJ (1857–58) 68, 77, Parl Deb (1858) 148, c 1855; and HC 115 (1857–58) p iii, a case where a select committee was appointed to consider whether a Member had taken money from an Indian prince to advocate the latter's claim to recover certain territory which they alleged had been wrongfully confiscated by the East India Company. On a subsequent occasion, it was found not to be a contempt but dishonourable conduct ‘in the nature of bribery’ for a Member of the Commons corruptly to accept payment for disclosure of matters to be proceeded within Parliament, obtained from other Members under obligations of secrecy. Those who committed such acts were to incur the grave displeasure of the House, which would take such action in the matter as it saw fit (CJ (1947–48) 20–23, 88; HC Deb (1947–48) 443, c 1094 ff).
  4. 4. In 1942–43, the Committee of Privileges considered the offer of ‘contingent expenses' to a Member, and concluded that the offer was made ‘not so much as to get [a] matter raised in the House as to bring pressure to bear on a government department to withdraw a prosecution’. The Committee were of the opinion that the individual who made the offer was ill-advised, but in the circumstances was not in contempt (HC 103 (1942–43)). Similarly, when in 1944–45 evidence came to light of an offer to pay money to a constituency association, conditional upon a Member's taking up a matter with a Minister, the Committee decided that what had happened was objectionable but not a contempt (HC 63 (1944–45)).