Questions for money

The British Press Complaints Commission adjudicated on 27 July 1994 on the issue of The Sunday Times' use of subterfuge to obtain information for an article published on 10 July and headlined "Revealed: MPs who accept 1,000 pounds to ask a parliamentary question". The full text of the adjudication is printed below:

On 11 July 1994 Mr Graham Riddick, MP for Coine Valley, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that information contained in an article in The Sunday Times of 10 July headlined "Revealed: MPs who accept 1,000 pounds to ask a parliamentary question" was unfairly obtained through subterfuge. He maintained that such information was readily available elsewhere and raised his complaint under Clauses 7(i), 7(iii) and 18 of the Code of Practice.

The article described how a journalist posed as an inventor interested in buying a firm. He offered the complainant 1,000 pounds to table a question in the House of Commons to the Secretary of State for Social Security about any work done by the firm (the name of which had been invented) for the Department.

Mr Riddick has since told the Commission that as the House of Commons has established a Committee of Privileges to consider issues relating to this matter he does not wish to proceed with his complaint.

The Commission is the appropriate body to decide whether The Sunday Times has breached the PCC's Code of Practice and it sees no conflict with the role of the Committee of Privileges in so doing. The Speaker of the House of commons has informed the Commission that she does not see any conflict between an adjudication by the Commission based on the provisions of the Code and any investigation by the Committee of Privileges.

The Commission has the power, of its own motion, to raise or continue the investigation of any alleged breach of the Code and it considers that Mr Riddick's complaint raises an important question of public interest on which it ought to adjudicate.

The Sunday Times told the Commission that they undertook this investigation after being told by a prominent businessman that it was common practice for MPs to be paid to table questions in Parliament and the "going rate was 1,000 pounds". The newspaper's receipt of this information coincided with rumours which it had picked up in the House of Commons that MPs were being paid for putting down questions. The newspaper believed that an investigation into these matters was in the public interest and considered that a debate about the question of payment to MPs and their consultancies was timely. The propriety of any such payment seemed to the newspaper to be unclear. Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice" indicates that the receipt of payment by MPs for tabling questions may be a breach of privilege yet payment appears to be permissible if MPs record any financial relationship with outside parties within a set period. An examination by the newspaper of thousands of parliamentary questions appeared to confirm the suspicions but not to offer exact proof. The newspaper contended that the use of subterfuge was the only method by which the matter could be investigated.

The Commission accepts the news-paper's explanation for its behaviour. The subject matter of the article raised issues of serious public interest which the newspaper had a right to pursue. In all the circumstances of this case, the Commission considers that the subterfuge used was justified as the only effective investigative tool available by which the information concerned could be obtained.

Jack R Herman

[ return to top ]

Return to APC News 1994 Index

Documents with the icon require the Acrobat Reader, a Free Utility from Adobe. Click here for more information.