MPs’ second jobs are a recipe for scandal. A brand new report, printed by the suppose tank that I lead (the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Analysis – “ICDR”) reveals the size of the issue and proposes a simle treatment: MPs shouldn’t be permitted to talk or vote on points the place they’ve a battle.
Second jobs are an anachronism from a pre-democratic age. When parliament was stuffed by aristocrats and their retainers, MPs acquired no wage. Solely these with inherited wealth or the form of job that permitted one to separate one’s time with Westminster, may afford to attend parliament. It was not till 1911, when electoral reform raised the prospect of working classlegislators, that MPs have been paid. Second jobs have, due to this fact, been pointless for over a century.
Within the wake of the Owen Patterson scandal, the federal government to promised reform of the foundations on second jobs. However its proposals have been quietly deserted as soon as adequate political cowl/a fair greater scandal supplied the chance.
Unsurprisingly a brand new sequence of scandals rapidly started to trickle in. Lord Maude, Open Democracy reported,“used [an] official journey to tout for personal work”. The Guardian have additionally reported that the Earl of Shrewsbury is presently below investigation in relation to lobbying allegations.
Featured
Firearms licensing inconsistencies “are symptomatic of wider police failures”
Featured
BASC reply to the England Deer Technique
The ICDR investigation, drawing on reporting by Open Democracy, reveals a correlation between the monetary pursuits and voting information of quite a few MPs. Examples embrace the MP with monetary pursuits in a non-public well being insurer who tried to alter the regulation to advertise funding in medical insurance; The MP working for an oil agency who in contrast local weather change demonstrations to “radical Islam” and voted towards measures to stop local weather change; The MP working for an funding financial institution who voted towards taxes on finance sector bonuses; And the MP who works for a playing agency whereas voting towards regulation of playing. Greater than 200 MPs have second jobs and are in a position to vote on points that impression on their or their employer’s monetary pursuits.
Correlation is just not causation. Our analysis is just not supposed to accuse people of wrongdoing butto determine structural issues. We determine these as twofold: (1) Any second job creates a battle of curiosity and (2) MPs are accountable to nobody however themselves on moral points.
Most MPs will possible by no means be influenced by their employer. However the mere existence of a battle creates a threat and, by extension, a notion amongst the general public that they might be. This erodes confidence in our democracy. Greatest observe in most professions requires avoiding conflicts of pursuits. Attorneys usually can’t work on instances during which they’ve a private stake within the end result. Charity trustees and firm board members should recuse themselves if a battle, or the looks of a battle, arises. Docs can’t be concerned in issues the place they’ve a monetary or private pursuits. All of those guidelines are enforced by unbiased regulators. Itsstrange that MPs, who maintain positions of energy and public belief far past these of attorneys, docs, or board members, will not be topic equal skilled requirements.
Our proposal targets the structural problem – the battle of curiosity created by second jobs. MPs have to be prohibited from talking or voting on any problem the place they’ve a monetary battle. This is able to imply that, if an MP needs to make some more money working for an oil firm, they might not communicate or vote on points affecting their employer’s pursuits (like local weather change or fracking). It can, after all, be for that MPs’ constituents to find out whether or not they would favor a consultant that is ready to communicate and vote on the complete panoply of public coverage points.
This is likely to be criticised for depriving parliament of “related” experience, however parliamentarians are imagined to be representatives, not consultants (those that make the “experience” argument by no means appear involved in regards to the lack of MPswith experience like nursing, social work, or on the manufacturing facility ground). Legislators ought to be incentivised to coach themselves about all points and views, not simply these of their subject.
Labour proposes that MPs be allowed to take jobs which are within the “public curiosity”. But the query of what jobs are within the “public curiosity” could be left to MPs themselves and would, consequently, at all times be topic to the potential for additional conflicts of pursuits. There might, nevertheless, be a case for sure basic exceptions. Parliamentarians with intensive property or share portfolios may keep away from battle by adopting the American observe of placing them in blind belief.
These guidelines have to be enforced independently. If MPs stay their very own choose and jury then there is no such thing as a incentive for them to behave ethically. Requirements have to be policed based mostly on information, not whether or not one can summon sufficient political allies to get away with it. Accordingly, attraction from selections of the parliamentary requirements commissioners ought to be to the courts, not the Commons or Lords. This is able to additionally introduce the component of “pure justice” that many Conservative members thought was lacking from parliament’s remedy of Owen Patterson.
These proposals could seem radical, however they’re merely bringing legislators into line with finest observe amongst different professions. If MPs will not be ready to carry themselves to the identical requirements as they anticipate from the remainder of us then they can not anticipate our belief.
