Former Tory MP faces 35-day House of Commons suspension over gambling sting

Former Conversative MP Scott Benton faces a 35-day suspension from the House of Commons and potentially losing his Blackpool South seat as an independent MP after being caught earlier this year in a lobbying sting involving a fake gambling company.

Benton, who was removed as a Tory MP last April following an initial investigation by the parliamentary watchdog, now faces an uncertain future after the publication of the Committee on Standards’ report into his behaviour.

The committee has suggested Benton committed a “very serious breach” of parliamentary rules, relating to Paragraph 11 of the House of Commons Code of Conduct.

Paragraph 11 of the code in the reads: “Members shall never undertake any action which would cause significant damage to the reputation and integrity of the House of Commons as a whole, or of its Members generally.”

Benton was initially caught in a sting by The Times earlier this year after two reporters posed as representatives of an Indian business named Tahr Partners.

Tahr Partners had sounded out Benton for an advisory role as the fictitious business was looking to “extend its involvement with the betting and gaming industry in the UK”, according to the undercover investigation.

At the time, Benton was serving as the chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming.

The meeting, which took place on 7 March and was secretly filmed, lasted for an hour, after which there was no further contact between Benton and the journalists.

Then, on 27 March, Benton contacted the office of the of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, spoke to the registrar, and then wrote to the Parliamentary Commissioner of Standards Daniel Greenberg CB to provide his account of the meeting.

Following the publication of The Times’ investigation on 6 and 7 April, Benton referred himself to the commissioner’s office. 

Greenberg subsequently obtained emails between the journalists and Benton, as well as a full recording of the meeting.

On the basis of the investigation, the Commissioner established during the meeting on 7 March that Benton had made statements to the effect that: “He had breached the House’s rules in the past; he would be willing to breach and/or circumvent the House’s rules for the company in return for payment; and other Members had previously breached and/or circumvented the House’s rules and would be willing to do so in the future in return for payment.”

During the investigation, Benton argued that he did not agree to undertake activity that would break the rules and that he reached out to the parliamentary watchdog after establishing the meeting was not within the proper remit of MPs.

However, the investigation showed that Benton, among other breaches of the House of Commons Code of Conduct, offered to:

. Provide the journalists with confidential government documents, including what Benton described as “private notes” from Ministers that “[give] you a bit more which they didn’t want to divulge”.

. Suggested other MPs would be open to supporting the fictious company’s aims should they provide hospitality offers.

. Suggested he would “be able to ‘call in favours’ to further the aims of the company”.

. Could provide access to the white paper into the Gambling Act 2005 at least 48 hours before publication.

Despite the commissioner’s findings, Benton claimed he did not consider his actions to be a breach of the House rules and refuted the suggestion he’d said other MPs would be inclined to violate the rules.

In a letter to the commissioner, Benton said: “The meeting was a lapse in judgement, and I deeply regret my comments. I would like to again offer my unequivocal apologies for the inaccurate statements I have made.

“My sincere hope is that I will be granted the opportunity to make amends for it throughout the remainder of my time in parliament and I can continue representing my constituents effectively. I would finally like to extend my heartfelt apologies to them for any negative repercussions this situation may have caused,” he added.

Should the House of Commons accept the recommended 35-day ban, it would trigger a recall petition, which allows voters to remove an MP. That scenario could lead to a by-election in Blackpool South.

Image source: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/