The key allegations made against Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind concern possible breaches of the parliamentary code of conduct.



The two former foreign secretaries are accused of offering to use their positions on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for payment. Their apparent claims to undercover reporters also appear to question their commitment to at least three of the seven general principles on conduct in public life set out by the Nolan committee.



Both deny the allegations. These are the most serious allegations against the MPs:



Jack Straw

The meetings with Straw about a potential consultancy with the fictitious Chinese firm took place in his parliamentary office. This appears to be a breach of the rules. The Commons members’ handbook [pdf] specifically forbids the use of parliamentary offices for private business. It says: “These facilities and services are provided in order to assist Members in their parliamentary work. They should be used appropriately, in such a way as to ensure that the reputation of the House is not put at risk. They should not be used for party political campaigning or private business activity.”

In secretly recorded conversations, Straw suggested that a member of his staff had worked on his outside business interests. Under the rules of conduct in the parliamentary code, paragraph 15 states: “Members are personally responsible and accountable for ensuring that their use of any expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters. Members shall ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties. It should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else, or confer undue advantage on a political organisation.”

Straw also claimed he operated “under the radar” to use his influence to change EU rules on behalf of ED&F Man, a commodity firm which paid him £60,000 a year.

He also boasted of convincing the Ukrainian prime minister to change laws that would have hindered the same firm’s sugar refinery in Ukraine.

Malcolm Rifkind

In another secretly recorded conversation Rifkind said he could submit questions to ministers on behalf of a private client without revealing their identity. This appears to breach the code, which repeatedly calls for any interest to be declared. For example, under paragraph 96, it says: “A member may speak freely on matters which relate to the affairs and interests of a body (or individual) from which he or she receives a financial benefit, provided the benefit is properly registered and declared.”

Rifkind also described himself as “self-employed” and said that “nobody pays me a salary” despite his £67,000-a-year MP’s salary. He has since accepted this was a “silly” mistake.

Rifkind boasted he could arrange “useful access” to every British ambassador in the world.

The most relevant part of the code in regard to allegations against both men concerns rules on lobbying agreed in November 1995. It states:

It is inconsistent with the dignity of the House, with the duty of a Member to his constituents, and with the maintenance of the privilege of freedom of speech, for any Member of this House to enter into any contractual agreement with an outside body, controlling or limiting the Member’s complete independence and freedom of action in parliament or stipulating that he shall act in any way as the representative of such outside body in regard to any matters to be transacted in parliament; the duty of a Member being to his constituents and to the country as a whole, rather than to any particular section thereof: and that in particular no Members of the House shall, in consideration of any remuneration, fee, payment, or reward or benefit in kind, direct or indirect, which the Member or any member of his or her family has received, is receiving or expects to receive – (i) Advocate or initiate any cause or matter on behalf of any outside body or individual, or

(ii) urge any other Member of either House of Parliament, including ministers, to do so, by means of any speech, question, motion, introduction of a bill or amendment to a motion or a bill or any approach, whether oral or in writing, to ministers or servants of the Crown.

The code makes clear that this resolution “prohibits paid advocacy”, but it does “not prevent a Member from holding a remunerated outside interest as a director, consultant, or adviser, or in any other capacity”.



Straw and Rifkind’s boasts also appear to question their commitment to three of the seven principles of public office set out by the Nolan committee. This is how the committee describes those principles: