In an investigation by The Times, the Conservative MP was covertly filmed offering to lobby ministers directly, share market-sensitive information, and ask questions on behalf of businesses in parliament; he claims he was unaware of the rules violation.
The Times undercoverly caught a Conservative congressman saying he would break campaign rules for money.
In March, Scott Benton, the Member of Parliament for Blackpool South, met with undercover reporters posing as employees of TAHR Partners, a fictitious corporation attempting to influence government policy, at a hotel in central London.
In an echo of the “cash for questions” scandal that engulfed John Major’s premiership. The Times has been investigating allegations that the gambling industry secured support from MPs in exchange for financial reward.
The newspaper reached out to several legislators and offered paid employment as an expert consultant. Mr. Benton said he would help the fraudulent firm for £2,000–£4,000 per month.
This is despite strict rules prohibiting MPs from paid lobbying or advising on how to sway parliament.
Mr. Benton did not receive any cash compensation from the meeting, so he did not violate parliamentary rules.
Throughout the video, however, the Conservative MP demonstrates a willingness to violate parliamentary rules and leak the government’s long-awaited gambling review, which is anticipated to be released around Easter after numerous delays.
Mr. Benton stated that he would “sing and dance” to ensure that TAHR Partners received the white paper “48 hours” before its publication, despite the likelihood that it would contain market-sensitive information.
He also provides three examples of how he could be more useful to reporters than a PR or lobbying firm, including direct access to ministers, the ability to submit written queries, and access to specific documents and information.
The attention of a minister directly.
MPs cannot ask ministers queries for a company that pays them.
However, when questioned about what he could offer the company as an MP that a PR or lobbying firm could not, he responded, “Probably the direct ear of a minister who will make these decisions.”
Mr. Benton stated that he could wait at the entrance of a voting lobby, where “the minister must pass you and then you have 10 minutes while you walk to the next vote to speak with him.”
In addition, he informed the company about written questions “where we can submit things for public record and receive an immediate response within five business days.
“The only thing they lack is direct access to a government minister,” he said, comparing his services to public relations.
He shows the fictitious employees his written query to the government “on behalf of one business.”
Despite the prohibition on MPs advising companies on how to influence the legislature, Mr. Benton suggests the company arrange an “urgent” meeting with the ministers of gambling and culture.
In addition, he suggests submitting written questions, followed by “writing something more formal and having me sit down with the minister to go through it line by line.”
“I have supported other colleagues’ specific requests in meetings with companies X, Y, and Z. And I’m confident they would return the favor,” he adds.
After the meeting, the employees inquire whether compensation between £2,000 and £4,000 is “in the ballpark.”
“Yes,” Mr. Benton says, nodding.
Mr. Benton told, “Last month, I was approached by a putative company that offered me an expert advisory role.
“I met with two individuals professing to represent the company to determine the responsibilities of this position. After this encounter, I was asked to send my resume and other personal information. I did not comply because I was apprehensive that the request violated parliamentary rules.
“I contacted the Commons Registrar and the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, who clarified these rules for me. Since then, I have had no further contact with the company.” I did this before learning that the firm did not exist and that its representatives were journalists.
A long-awaited assessment of gambling
The government’s wagering review, started in 2020 but delayed, will be released soon after the undercover exercise.
Since 2005, when the Gambling Act liberalized the law to allow television advertising and made the United Kingdom the first nation to legalize online gambling, campaigners, and politicians have demanded immediate reform.
The review is anticipated to include a prohibition on so-called VIP packages on betting sites, tighter financial controls. And a tax on gambling companies to finance treatment and awareness programs.
