In a sign that the populace might not have been all that well served by its representatives in recent years, the House of Commons will debate today whether Members of Parliament, who are paid £91,346 a year (plus considerable expenses), should actually do their jobs. This is necessary because in recent years, certain MPs have decided to supplement their already significant incomes by advising private companies or appearing on reality TV.
We already have a system for deciding whether MPs are really doing their jobs, and that system has released Matt Hancock and Nadine Dorries to eat all the ostrich anuses they like in the Australian jungle, ideally without cameras present. However, the government is now planning to bring in new rules on MPs’ second jobs. Labour’s manifesto warned that a lack of regulation on second jobs meant “some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them”, so it is planning to ban “paid advisory or consultancy roles” for MPs.
Politically, it doesn’t hurt to remind the public of the incompetence, recklessness and self-interest that was evident during much of the Conservatives’ time in power. As happened when Labour took power after a long period of Tory rule in 1997, a new Modernisation Committee will be established to sweep away the sleaze.
Blair’s Modernisation of the House of Commons Committee was controversial among MPs, partly because it was chaired by a government minister (the leader of the House) rather than an opposition MP; one Conservative MP described the original committee, under Margaret Beckett, as “Stalinist” in its reinforcement of government power.
A new Modernisation Committee could become controversial again if, for example, it begins by asking whether MPs should really have their own TV shows. It’s quite a lot of work hosting a TV show – almost all of which takes place off-camera – so it’s reasonable to ask MPs to spend their time doing the job they’ve been elected to do. It’s also against Ofcom’s rules for an elected politician to present a “news programme”. But something tells me Nigel Farage isn’t going to see it that way. Any attempt to restrict his broadcasting will doubtless be met by the claim that he is being silenced by the establishment.
It’s also important to remember that while lobbying by MPs is egregious, it is just a tiny fraction of the lobbying that happens in Westminster, almost all of which is unregulated. It’s not often that an industry complains to the government that it would like to be more closely observed, but that’s exactly what Britain’s lobbyists are asking for. There are thought to be around 14,000 professional lobbyists in the UK; as we reported earlier this month, more than 100 of these people stood to become MPs. According to Transparency International, 96 per cent of the lobbying conducted by the industry isn’t covered by the Lobbying Act.
The UK’s official register of lobbyists has just 225 entries. Similar registers in the US and EU have tens of thousands. This isn’t because we lack lobbyists but because we only count a handful of firms (“consultant” lobbyists, who speak to government on behalf of clients) as needing regulation. “Almost every country has registers that go further than ours”, says Jon Gerlis, head of public relations and policy at the Chartered Institute of Public Relations. As a professional lobbyist, Gerlis told me, he is not required to declare if he’s had a meeting with a minister in which he’s argued for a change in policy – and in fact he’s not able to do so in any official way. The UK is unusual in this: “Those sorts of processes exist in almost every other country,” Gerlis told me. It doesn’t help businesses that lobbying in the UK is kept in the shadows.
Labour is asking the public for patience as it tries make its political ambitions fit into its fiscal restrictions. It will only receive that forbearance if it can be shown to be governing well, and with great integrity. It’s right to address the conduct of MPs, but the second jobs and phone calls to friends usually have a way of finding daylight. A more open record of who gets to speak to power, and about what, might do more to restore the public’s faith in parliament.
This piece first appeared in the Morning Call newsletter; receive it every morning by subscribing on Substack here.
Content from our partners
Related
