Draft Corruption Bill
1.11 A draft Corruption Bill was presented by the
Government to Parliament on 24 March 2003.[9]
The bill, if enacted as originally drafted, would abolish the
existing common law offence of bribery and existing statutory
corruption offences, creating three new statutory offences of
general application relating to:-
- corruptly conferring an advantage
- corruptly obtaining an advantage and
- performing functions as an agent corruptly
The proposed new offences would apply to Members
as to all other citizens, thus fulfilling the objective of the
Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege of ensuring that Members
fall clearly and unambiguously within the scope of the criminal
law on corruption.[10]
1.12 There is no evidence that corruption involving
Members of Parliament has in recent years been a problem of any
significance. Indeed, there is only one known case of a prosecution
of a Member for a corruption offence (and then not for actions
during proceedings in Parliament) and in that case, the Member
was acquitted.[11] Nonetheless,
the Committee on Standards and Privileges welcomed the draft Bill.
In a submission to the Joint Committee of both Houses which was
set up to consider the Bill, the Committee noted that if the Bill
was enacted as drafted it was possible that some actions which
would previously have been considered purely disciplinary matters
for the House to deal with under the Code might also be viewed
as possible criminal offences.
1.13 Whilst noting that the possibility of criminal
liability arising in relation to conduct complained of did not
prevent the House from imposing an appropriate disciplinary penalty
for breach of the Code, the Committee on Standards and Privileges
indicated that criminal proceedings should normally take precedence
over the House's disciplinary proceedings, provided that this
did not mean undue delay. Where a complaint was made to the Commissioner
alleging criminal conduct, and the Commissioner considered that
the matter should be further investigated by the police, the Committee
would therefore expect him to report the facts to it with a recommendation
that the matter be referred to the police for further investigation.
Similarly if the Commissioner became aware that police inquiries
were in hand in relation to a matter on which he had received
a complaint, the Committee would normally expect the Commissioner
to recommend suspending his inquiry until the police investigation
had been completed and a decision taken on whether the Member
should be charged.
1.14 Clause 12 of the draft Bill proposed the removal
from parliamentary proceedings of the protection of Article IX
of the Bill of Rights in relation to prosecutions for the new
corruption offences. The Committee supported on balance the proposed
removal in relation to corruption cases where Members were involved.
However, it noted that the effect of the clause as set out in
the draft bill would be to remove the protection in all
cases involving corruption offences, whether or not Members were
involved, and in respect of a wide range of proceedings in Parliament.
The Joint Committee considering the Bill favoured narrowing the
clause and proposed a revised version.[12]
In its response to the Joint Committee's report published on 18
December 2003, the Government said that it would like the opportunity
to listen further to both Houses of Parliament on the point before
reaching a firm conclusion.[13]
1.15 The Ministerial statement announcing the publication
of the White Paper said that "a revised Bill will be introduced
when Parliamentary time permits". It must in principle be
right that the law on corruption applies clearly to Members as
to other citizens and I await with interest the promised introduction
of the Bill.
Pay for select committee chairmen
1.16 A report by the Review Body on Senior Salaries
(SSRB), published by the Government on 17 July 2003 as Cm 5673,
included a recommendation that the House should decide, before
introducing extra payment for chairmen of select committees, whether
they should be required to relinquish 'paid or conflicting' outside
interests as a condition of receiving payment.[14]
The Leader of the House sought the advice of the Committee on
Standards and Privileges, and the Committee reported its views
on 15 October 2003.[15]
1.17 The Committee did not find any evidence of shortcomings
in the existing arrangements aimed at preventing a conflict between
the outside interests of chairmen of select committees and their
responsibilities as chairmen. It did not therefore recommend the
imposition of any additional restrictions on their outside interests
as a result of the introduction of payment.
1.18 However, the Committee recommended arrangements
to ensure that select committee chairmen's declared interests
become a matter of public knowledge as soon as possible after
they have been chosen by their committees. It also suggested that
if chairmen were to be paid from public funds, there should be
no question of, nor any appearance of, any double payment—from
both a chairman's salary and an outside interest—for an
outside activity arising primarily as a result of the chairmanship.
Nor, like Ministers, should chairmen gain private benefit from
work done, in whole or in part, with any assistance from public
resources.[16] The Committee
offered to bring forward guidelines on these matters for the House's
consideration.
1.19 When the House considered the matter on 30 October
2003, and decided that certain select committee chairmen should
be paid from the start of the next Session, it endorsed the approach
advocated by the Committee. The Committee subsequently prepared
guidance for chairmen and members of select committees on the
avoidance of conflict of interests, which was published as the
Committee's Seventh Report of Session 2002-03.[17]
A copy of this guidance (in the preparation of which I was involved)
is at Appendix 3 to this report.
1.20 So far, the guidance has proved satisfactory.
The Registrar of Members' Interests and I will keep its operation
under review and report any practical issues which may arise to
the Committee as necessary.
3 A note briefly describing those arrangements is at
Appendix 4 Back
4
Cm 5663, Paragraph 2.7 Back
5
Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 5663, paragraph 3.23 Back
6
See respectively HC 403, 2002-03, Eighth Report of the Committee
on Standards in Public Life: "Standards of Conduct in the
House of Commons" & HC 422, 2002-03, Response to the
Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life: "Standards
of Conduct in the House of Commons", respectively Back
7
SO Nos 149 & 150 respectively Back
8
HC 516, Session 2002-03 Back
9
Cm 6068 Back
10
Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 214-I, Session
1998-99, paragraph 166-169 Back
11
Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, HC 214-I, Session
1998-99, paragraph 136 Back
12
HC 705, Session 2002-03, paragraphs 134-5 Back
13
Cm 6068, Session 2002-03 Back
14
Cm 5673, Session 2002-03, paragraph 234 Back
15
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Sixth Report, Session 2002-03,
HC 1150 Back
16
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Sixth Report, Session 2002-03,
HC 1150, paragraph 16 Back
17
Committee on Standards and Privileges, Seventh Report, Session
2002-03, HC 1292 Back
