Parliamentary standards and outside jobs

 The immediate BBC TV news coverage of yesterday's standards debate in the Commons was disappointing. Laura Kuenssberg presented the session merely as a test of prime minister Boris Johnson. Note that there was no criticism of the Conservative party as such, and of course no acknowledgement that the emergency debate had been obtained by a Liberal Democrat. There was a more balanced report this morning from Adam Fleming, who in the short time he had available outlined the various strands of argument for and against an overhaul of the standards system and the extent of any changes. He also pointed out that there was substantial cross-party agreement on a number of points.

The first of these was laid down by the Speaker in his introduction: that the debate not be personalised. No aspersions should be cast on the prime minister or the leader of the Scottish Nationalists for their absences, of which notice had been given to Mr Speaker. This admonition was largely followed, though one opposition MP had to be sharply brought to order when he crossed the red line in an intervention.

Secondly, there was consistent support for the Commissioner for Standards, Kathryn Stone, and condemnation of the death threats she had received. Even the few MPs who thought she had too much power did not want to remove her, merely to have her responsibilities redefined. One trusts that she feels able to carry on and will not be forced out of office as a previous Commissioner was. Elizabeth Filkin suffered for carrying out her work on policing expenses claims too rigorously and transparently.

Thereafter, opinion divided as to whether Owen Paterson had been denied natural justice in being sanctioned by the Committee on Standards. There was surprisingly little support on the Conservative benches for his behaviour, but some doubt as to the process. The main contention was that it was wrong that the Committee itself should rule on appeals. The argument that an independent outside panel of high court judges should be the final arbiter was most exhaustively argued by Alberto Costa and Jeremy Wright who are unsurprisingly both lawyers. The model was the mechanism for handling complaints of bullying and harassment of parliamentary staff.

Such a final tribunal, ruling on the narrow point as to whether a sanctioned MP had received a fair hearing, would be preferable to the scheme that the government had in mind: another committee of MPs on which there would be a built-in government majority. As Conservative Kevin Hollinrake put it in an intervention on Steve Barclay's response to Wendy Chamberlain's opening statement:

My right hon. Friend has set out a gracious apology for what happened last week, but will he concede that one thing that was not right with the amendment the Government supported was that the members of the proposed Committee were hand-picked? If the standards of this House are to be reformed, would it not be better for such a Committee to be chaired by somebody who is elected by this whole House and for the Committee members also to be elected in the normal way for Select Committee members?

The fact that Barclay effectively ignored the question suggests that Johnson and Rees-Mogg are intent on pursuing their anti-democratic line. However, they may not have their own way judging by the number of Members on their own side who clearly rejected it.

The only major defender of the disgraced Owen Paterson was Sir Bill Cash. I find it increasingly difficult to follow Sir Bill's arguments. He seems to have progressed from debating the number of angels on the head of a pin to querying the metallurgical content of the pin itself. However, he seemed to be a supporter of an American legal type of system, where a defendant can continue to appeal to higher and higher courts until he or she gets their way or their money runs out.

Chris Bryant, chairman of the Standards Committee, in his response to the debate, rebutted the argument that the committee could not in justice rule on an appeal. He also pointed out that the Committee is in the middle of a review of the Code of Conduct, a regular duty which is part of the Committee's remit but which has had to be deferred in recent years by the frequency of elections. 

It seems to me that the government should now retreat from interfering in decisions which are properly the concern of the whole House. The House itself should wait on the recommendation of the Committee's review and any relevant significant independent assessments before proceeding. I trust that by the time this screed appears, the Leader will have drafted Motions to restore the status quo before the Leadsom amendment was passed last Wednesday.

Second jobs

In the debate yesterday, there were calls from several Labour members to ban MPs from paid employment apart from their work in parliament. Richard Burgon was first to make the point:

Let me attempt to help the Government. Is not the root cause of all this MPs trying to get paid even more than the £82,000 a year that they already get? I should not have to remind the Government that 95% of the public get paid less than MPs, nor that being an MP is a full-time job. Chasing corporate cash is, quite simply, short-changing the public. Will the Minister agree to help to clean up politics by backing my Bill to ban second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh jobs for Members of Parliament?

Revelations over the weekend of the eye-watering amounts some Conservatives received in outside employment added ammunition to the calls. However, I am with Steve Barclay (on this point only) and Alistair Carmichael in rejecting an outright ban which would in the latter's words

have the unintended consequence of making more people see this as an occupation from which there would never be any departure. The idea that people can come here for a term or two and then return to whatever profession or occupation they had beforehand is good and sensible

There does seem to be an assumption on the Labour benches, especially from safe seats, that being a MP is an elected job for life in the profession of politics. Moreover, it is relatively easy for a Labour member voted out of office to move into work for which no special skills are required other than those which they have honed in the chamber. Charities, trade unions and even friendly media organisations provide friendly berths for such people. 

For those who give up a profession in which skills have to be constantly kept up-to-date it is another matter. There is also the specialist knowledge which a practitioner can bring to parliamentary discussion. When I was on the local council, I did not begrudge those Labour members who continued to serve in the health service even after election. Their up-to-date experience was valuable. 

Obviously, parliamentary business takes precedence and no outside job should get in the way of that. Nor should sinecures or positions awarded simply because the recipient is a MP be allowed in future. That seems to have been the case with Paterson and is still prejudicial to the behaviour of some remaining MPs. 

I cannot resist adding that in 1867, when MPs were not paid for being Members and had to rely on income from estates or a profession to sustain themselves, Parliament sat only between February and August with an additional 16 days in November and December. They still managed to pass around 200 pieces of legislation including the important North America Act and the Second Great Reform Act.