Corruption in Britain
| Date | 01 June 1977 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1977.tb01182.x |
| Author | Michael Pinto-Duschinsky |
| Published date | 01 June 1977 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
CORRUPTION
IN
BRITAIN
The
Royal
Commission
on
Standards
of
Conduct
in
Public
Life’
MICHAEL PINTO-DUSCHINSKY
Brunel
University
IN February 1974 one of the most serious corruption cases that Britain has ever
seen ended with the imprisonment
of
the Yorkshire architect,
John
Poulson, and
a senior civil servant, George Pottinger. During the following three months
there were
six
further convictions, including those of two leading figures in
politics in the North East of England,
T.
Dan Smith and Andrew Cunningham.
By May 1974 there were still
300
more ‘possible candidates for investigation’ in
connection with
Mr.
Poulson’s activities and the attorney general therefore
decided ‘to concentrate prosecutions
on
major cases
of
public importance’
(Chapter 2).
In December 1974, while these residual cases were still in progress, a Royal
Commission was appointed with Lord Salmon as chairman. It was to
be
an
inquiry into standards of conduct
in
central and local government and other public
bodies
in
the United Kingdom
.
. .
and to make recommendations
as
to the
further
safeguards that may
be
requited
to
ensure
the highest standard of probity in public life;
(p.
iv).
There had already been one hurried inquiry into corruption. In October 1973,
Mr. Heath had appointed a Committee
on
Local Government Rules of Conduct,
with Lord RedcWe-Maud as chairman. Its report had appeared
in
May 1974.2
The Royal Commission was to have a wider brief. But, like the Redcliffe-Maud
Committee, its appointment was a direct result of ‘public anxiety aroused by the
Poulson affair’ (para. 11).
As
the Royal Commission acknowledged in its report,
which was published in July 1976, ‘[mlany of our conclusions are drawn from
this affair’ (para. 11).
If
one of the underlying reasons for its appointment was to provide reassurance
to the public,
its
report (like that of the Redclse-Maud Committee) felt justified
in
falling this objective. While it declared that there was
‘no
room for com-
placency’ (para. 36) and while it acknowledged the existence
of
‘substantial
malpractices’ (para. 262), the main conclusion was comforting:
We have heard no evidence
to
give
us
concern about the integrity and
sense
of public
duty of
our
bureaucracy
as
a
whole, or to suggest that
it
is
common
for members of the
public
to
offer bribes to officials of any
rank
. .
.
or for officials to solicit
bribes
(para.
35).
To continue reading
Request your trial