UFO, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 71: Offentlige svar på ECPRD-forespørgsel til øvrige europæiske parlamenter om ydelser af en økonomisk fordel i forbindelse med nedlæggelse af et parlamentsmandat.

Udvalget for Forretningsordenen 2024-25
UFO Alm.del Bilag 71
Offentligt

To:

From:

Research section:

Tel:

Email:

Ref:

Date:

Maiken Bork Clausen, Denmark - Folketinget

Richard Kelly

Parliament and Constitution Centre

0207 219 4948

[email protected]

REQ-883781

24 July 2025

The offering of a financial advantage in

exchange for the resignation of a seat in

parliament

ECPRD Request No 6116

Following a specific case, the Folketing is currently engaged in discussions on the more

fundamental legal and constitutional issues that may arise in situations where a

Member of the Folketing is offered or receives a financial benefit from others

—

including

individuals affiliated with the Member’s political party —

on the condition

that the Member resigns their seat. These discussions include consideration of

whether there is a need to introduce a prohibition against such arrangements.

In preparation for a potential future regulation of the matter, answers are therefore

sought to the following questions.

Questions

1) Is there any legislation or other form of regulation, such as a code of conduct, that

prohibits

(i)

(ii)

a Member of Parliament from accepting a financial advantage on the

condition that they resign their seat;

the act of offering such a proposal, including by individuals from the

member’s own party.

2) If so, what does the regulation entail, and how is it enforced?

UFO, Alm.del - 2024-25 - Bilag 71: Offentlige svar på ECPRD-forespørgsel til øvrige europæiske parlamenter om ydelser af en økonomisk fordel i forbindelse med nedlæggelse af et parlamentsmandat.

Commons Library Request Response, 24 July 2025

Response

These scenarios would be covered by internal regulation and the rules associated with

exclusive cognisance, that is Parliament has “sole

jurisdiction

…

over all matters subject

to parliamentary privilege”.

An MP accepting financial advantage may be in breach of any of the following rules of

the

Code of Conduct

(PDF):

Rule 3

•

The acceptance by a Member of a bribe to influence his or her conduct as a

Member, including any fee, compensation or reward in connection with the

promotion of, or opposition to, any Bill, Motion, or other matter submitted, or

intended to be submitted to the House, or to any Committee of the House, is

contrary to the law of Parliament.

Rule 2

•

Members must base their conduct on a consideration of the public interest, avoid

conflict between personal interest and the public interest and resolve any conflict

between the two, at once, and in favour of the public interest.

Rule 11

•

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.

The process for enforcement of the code is set out in the published

Procedural

Protocol in respect of the Code of Conduct

(PDF).

The offering of a financial advantage could potentially be a contempt of Parliament.

Box 1: Contempts of Parliament

Each House also claims the right to punish contempts. These are actions which, while not

necessarily breaches of any specific privilege, obstruct or impede it in the performance of

its functions, or are offences against its authority or dignity, such as disobedience to its

legitimate commands or libels upon itself, its Members or its officers.

Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege,

Parliamentary Privilege

(PDF), 3 July 2013, HC 100 2013-14, para 15

Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition, 2019,

para 12.1;

Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege,

Parliamentary Privilege

(PDF), 3 July 2013, HC 100 2013-14, para 3

Commons Library Request Response, 24 July 2025

If there was prima facie evidence that a contempt had been committed, the House is

likely to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges to investigate. The Committee

of Privileges would report its conclusions to the House.

The penal powers of the two Houses of Parliament are uncertain.

If the committee

found a breach of privilege, it would be likely to recommend the censure of the

individual concerned.

If the committee considered during its inquiry that laws had been broken, it would

refer the matter to the police and put its inquiry on hold while any police investigation

took place.

Because individuals are appointed to the House of Lords, there are sometimes reports

that political parties indicate to their MPs that if they retire at a general election, they

are likely to be appointed to the House of Lords. I am not sure whether this constitutes

financial advantage but I have been advised that party management would not be

considered a contempt.

Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege,

Parliamentary Privilege

(PDF), 3 July 2013, HC 100 2013-14, chapter