I admit that I might not be the best person to ask about someone having a second job. That I can recall, since 1985 I have always had at least two employments simultaneously, and quite often more. Portfolio working has, for me, been normal. That, though, is not the same as an MP having a second job. Being a member of the House of Commons would seem to me to be a full-time role, and many MPs that I have known, and do know, would appear to agree. So, what is the proper position to take on this issue?
I am aware that many are calling for an outright ban on second jobs for MPs, and I can understand their reasoning. But, I also have reasons for hesitation. An MP who is also a doctor is not, I think, abusing their role as an MP if they do work some hospital sessions, most especially during a medical crisis. And, maybe, an MP who takes on a public duty role outside the House of Commons and who is remunerated for the extra task involved is doing nothing more, I suspect, than an MP who chairs a parliamentary committee, and who is paid for doing so. Let us also not forget that we do let MPs work as ministers, and be paid additional sums for doing so, and this is also, in effect, an additional role.
The point I am making is that there would appear to be a case for not being absolutely rigid on this issue. An outright ban on second rose might not always be useful. I think most people would understand that. What upsets them are cases like those of Geoffrey Cox, Owen Paterson and Iain Duncan Smith, where the roles seem to be purely for personal gain and conflict with their parliamentary duties.
We do, then, have a problem in need of a solution. My suggestion is that there be a presumption that having a second job is always unacceptable in the case of an MP unless prior consent has been given, and the scope of the job, the nature of the role to be undertaken and the extent of the remuneration has been agreed in advance by an independent parliamentary scrutineer. Requiring that MPs justify any second role would seem to be an appropriate direction of travel. A total ban might not be. But, what is required is that this issue be addressed. the existing situation cannot continue.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
An MP serves the interests of their party and party leader
And is meant to serve all of their constituents
The power to do two jobs badly
So give them less power
Much less power
Who would you give power to?
I find your suggestion very worrying
The salary for an MP is nearly £82k. That is more than 2.5 times, approaching 3 times, median national earnings. It may appear low compared to many equivalent senior roles in the City (or even some quite junior roles), but compared to most people in the country it much more than they will ever earn in one year. The temptation to take some of the largesse generously thrust in their direction must be very great – most of families to support, mortgages to pay, etc – but you have to wonder whether someone earning close to £1m for outside work really has their constituents’ interests closest to their hearts. It is time for stronger rules on MPs second jobs, and indeed the jobs that former MPs and former ministers take shortly after leaving office.
I’m not sure about this.
You’d be surprised how many people think that they are underpaid on £80K+ a year.
I would say that if the MP has a public sector job (NHS or whatever) then that’s OK because there is contribution back to society but it would surely compromise their ability to vote on issues that affected that job in the House?
But there is no way an MP should be working for wages in any private sector employment as far as I am concerned. There’s something wrong when you have people working in the highest court in the land but also working in those sectors it should be legislating for.
Best not to put temptation in their way is my advice.
I very much doubt any private-sector employment would meet the criteria I have proposed
Would it not make sense for the rules with regard second jobs for MPs to mirror those in place for many years for civil servants? Second jobs are not banned outright for civil servants, but they are subject to scrutiny and rules.
On a separate but linked point, a civil servant using home email or WhatsApp for business would be sacked.
I think we are agreeing
Whilst it is easy to point to “paid” activities it would be equally reasonable to object to an MP being engaged in any “unpaid” activity for extensive periods of time as well.
I think there is a danger when you say to people that they can do what they want, as long as they aren’t paid for it. In essence you are dictating the sort of outside interests and activities they are allowed to have and constituents might still feel that their MP isn’t working for them!
To be completely honest if your MP spent all their time working as a surgeon at the local hospital they wouldn’t be any use either, no matter how laudable the work may be.
Most MP’s seem to draw substantial amounts of money from a few hours work per month. It is hard to believe that working on something for a few hours per month prevents them from properly undertaking their duties as an MP, but if it does then I think we need to question how any MP has time to attend weekly matches of their football team or follow a particular TV show.
Richard is living proof that some people can do more than one thing very effectively and that some people always seem to be able to find or make time to do so.
It does not seem to me advisable to negotiate this issue as a matter principally of ‘second jobs’. We then become embroiled in issues like that facing Philippa Whitford MP (a consultant breast surgeon); I do not find that either illuminating or persuasive.
The key issue is surely the very serious and dangerous matter of paid lobbying by MPs. The problem is not even one of abstract justice (introduced by the kind of tortuous legal sophistry of Alberto Costa MP, who appears to wish to introduce the standards of criminal justice to an area of civil and employment law that nobody outside Parliament has ever been able to rely on in ordinary life); but rather one of justice being seen to be done. If an MP becomes the paid consultant of a corporate business; in a case where the business subsequently approaches Government or Parliament on a matter where it has an interest, and the MP uses his or her offices in support, how could the electorate conceivably determine whether the MP is acting as a paid consultant, or representative of his/her electorate? Of course it can’t, because it has no access to the intention.
It seems to me that if an MP is the paid consultant of a corporation he/she should be required not only to declare it, but automatically be prohibited from acting in Parliament or Government on behalf of the Corporation; with the most serious, non-negotiable consequences if the prohibition is breached; automatic recall of the MP as a minimum.
Ultimately, so serious is the danger of the independence of Parliament, effectively being suborned and undermined by corporate power, when it ought only to be answerable to the electorate (the modern justification of Parliament’s sovereignty, at least since Dicey) ; that if there is to be the serious consideration of introducing the criminal law into this area (as Costa seems determined to demand), but which has its own risks for Parliamentary sovereignty and the functioning of democracy, then the emphasis also has to be on the severity of the criminal penalties for everyone involved.
As an aside, I have often thought that in order to ensure major corporations and independent national institutions actually participate in Parliament, the Second Chamber should become virtually wholly ex-officio; this is what it was in pre-commercial society; when it represented Church and landed aristocracy. (in Scotland pre-Union, ‘the Three Estates’). Unfortunately when commercial society developed, Capitalism remained forever corporately unrepresented in the Second Chamber; a position that allowed it to develop a better way of operating; lobbying political parties that need money (as George Monbiot has pointed out, large benefits accrue what is ‘small change’ in the corporate world); allowing business and ‘markets’ to advance and consolidate their power over politics, without taking any direct responsibility whatsoever; but fruitfully and wholly acting in corporate and profit interests: forever in the shadows and out of sight or proper public examination or scrutiny. I do not underestimate the difficulties such a proposal represents; not least that the major vested interests in society have neither the inclination or desire for such exposure to the electorate and to scrutiny; when the current system serves their interests so well, so discreetly, and so cheaply.
It’s all part of the problem of standards of conduct in public life. Johnson is the apotheosis of all that is wrong with the existing model – his failures are well known and documented and yet he continues to breach Standards every day with impunity.
A robust Standards with teeth and probably enforceable through the courts or a special independent Standards body (lol) would sort out many of the current issues of integrity, deceit, lobbying, inappropriate secondary emoluments, cronyism, revolving-door-syndrome and so on.
And like PR it is in neither Party’s interests to introduce such a Standards.
As an aside, I agree, with part of the first comment by “Poet Lazlo” that MP’s first and foremost represent their parties, enforced by whips. The power of the Parties needs to be broken …but won’t be.
I believe there was a Guardian article a few years ago (I cannot find it right now), which suggested, however unpopular it might appear on the face of it, to pay MPs a flat rate nearer to £200k. This was in response to expenses claims being abused and the issue of second homes and staffing.
I have to say I would agree with this if it meant that out of this ‘budget’, MPs would have to pay for any assistants, travel, second accommodation and not hold any other job or conflicting interests. Surely that is a more than fair compromise.
But do the MPs for Westminster and the Western Isles need the same allowances?
Not if parliament is moved to the Midlands 🙂
🙂
I share your difficulty with rigid rules for MPs. It is hard to complain about a skilled professional like a doctor or a lawyer doing small amounts of work to maintain their skills – after all it is a feature of democracy that MPs should not assume they have a job for life. Or contributing during a crisis. Nor can you complain about an author receiving royalties for books written before election, or even during periods of parliamentary recess.
However there has to be a real concern that any MP earning more from their outside work than their parliamentary salary is at huge risk of developing priorities which conflict with their representative role. Such individuals should at the very least be subject to repeated and intensive scrutiny.
And using the privileges of an MP – like access to government ministers and departments – on behalf of an organisation who has paid for them to do that should be a criminal offence not just a parliamentary misdemeanour merely attracting internal sanctions. Even if the organisation is a charity, there has to be a concern if that representation would not be something they would do out of public interest and personal conviction.
There are a number of professions where you are required to do a certain amount of work each year to retain your professional competence, Medics, pilots & Merchant Navy officers spring to mind.
I have no issues with MP’s from these and similar professions keeping their qualifications current.
To a point, & I suggest that the sort of sums handed out by Murdoch to Johnson spring to mind as excessive writing I suggest is possibly partly remunerative and partly to promote an MP or their Party’s interest.
MP’s who run their own business’s – how do we deal with that, farmers, solicitors etc possibly cant be expected to simply dump possibly generations of work.
But what is a fair compromise and certainly no to outside work that starts after an MP’s election.
When looking at employment contracts, the key is simplicity. When there is complexity, there are “grey” areas that can be exploited. Simple solution: no paid employment outside parliament. This does not stop unpaid work necessary to maintain licences, or MP’s volunteering at a soup kitchen.