Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament?

Ministers are discussing proposals to curb outside earnings in Parliament. 66 per cent of Tory MPs, 37 per cent of Liberal Democrats and 19 per cent of Labour MPs have other jobs, reports The Independent.

The report says that three proposals are being considered in a confidential paper by Helen Goodman, deputy leader of the house.
(i) a total ban on outside earnings
(ii) a US-style earnings limit of 15 per cent on top of an MP's salary
 (iii) a ban on paid directorships and some other jobs but some exemptions, such as from journalism.

Ex-Minister (and Brown leadership campaign coordinator) Chris Leslie writes in the new Fabian Review that:

“Our politicians need to set an example and act fairly at a time when ordinary people have such low expectations of the behaviour of elected representatives. This needs to go beyond salary restraint. MPs should serve their constituents first and foremost, regarding the taxpayer as their paymaster above all others.

If MPs have excessive outside earnings from consultancies and directorships, then people perceive that they are diverted from the public interest – or worse, that they are exploiting their public status.

Labour could be bold and propose a ban on outside earnings for MPs, or at the very least should emulate the American cap on external income at 15 per cent of a member's annual salary.

Such is the crisis of confidence in politics that only radical steps such as this can hope to impress a sceptical public"

Sadiq Khan, a government whip, is quoted in support, saying that the Conservative Party are getting away with "blue murder" by giving the impression that MPs were paid a generous salary and expenses, without saying many Tories had up to four outside jobs and regarded their parliamentary salary as a top-up.




Display: Sort:

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#1)

I do not think MPs should be allowed to take any other remunerated employment outside of their parliamentary/ministerial role.  These are - or should be - full time jobs. However, if MPs wish to sit on the board of a company or write an article for a newspaper - fine. But they should not be allowed to accept payment for it.

A case is often advanced (principally by Conservative MPs) that additional jobs outside Parliament allow MPs to "keep in touch" with the wider world.  Again, fine. But why is it that the wider world is almost exclusively limited to the City and none of these MPs wish to keep in touch with life in front line public services, for example.

However, if MPs cannot address the shortcomings of their expenses system and the subsequent public outrage that is created, I am unconvinced anything will be done to address second and third (and more!) jobs.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#2)

I agree about paid earnings as part of a wage, but fees earned from writing etc should be allowed. How would you propose to deal with an MP who wrote a book on fly-fishing? Is he not not entitled to the royalties any other author would earn?

What about Diane Abbot? I'm she gets a fee for appearing on This Week. Should she forego her fee whilst Michael Portillo gets his?

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#4)

This is so, and the main stumbling block. But I believe that MP's should have an interest in other things organisations to broaden their knowledge of the real world. What we are basically talking about is people like Ken Clake sitting in boardrooms earning a fat salary for doing bugger all than lending their name to organisations like BAT. That is not on, and should be stopped. Perhaps a scheme could be devised where the fees for such 'philanthropic' work is 'pooled' in a common 'MP's Benevolent Fund' and distributed evenly to all 6oo-odd MPs, apart from the Speaker at the end of the year.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#6)

I do not think MPs should get paid for any broadcasts they undertake whilst they remain MPs. They can still partake, but they should not be paid. Perhaps there is a case for allowing MPs to nominate charities to receive payments instead.

As for the matter of MPs as authors, I take your point. My concern though is how much time (research and writing) will be taken up when the MP has constituents to serve? While I found William Hague's biography of Pitt extremely readable, it must have diverted a huge amount of his time and attention from his parliamentary responsibilities.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#8)

"I do not think MPs should get paid for any broadcasts they undertake whilst they remain MPs."

In that case you would deprive us of the ability to challenge and question our MPs and ministers. How many would appear on Any Questions or Question Time or This Week? These programmes and others like them put the politicans face to face with us and they get to hear it direct. They get put on the spot and challenged. They get reminded of who their employers are - us lot! 

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#18)

Why? Do you really think politicians only agree to appear on these programmes for the £100 appearance fee?  

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#3)

I can think of several ways to get round such a ban.
As the prior post says, MPs cannot sort out the most simple of things: an expenses system.

SO until that is sorted, I have zero faith in any new proposals...

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#5)

A fundamental reason for the massive managerial incompetence of this government is that none of them have any experience of real world jobs of any calibre. Who would you rather have as Home Secretary - a former teacher who has no experience of criminal justice or a successful criminal lawyer?

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#7)

Well first I don't accept that the role of teacher is not a real world job of calibre.

That aside, I think the thrust of your point is a red herring.  I don't accept that a Minister needs to have experience drawn directly from their area of responsibility. Sure, I guess it helps, but Ministers are there to give direction and leadership to a portfolio, not offer hands-on managerial meddling. Specific expertise is provided by the civil service.

There is of course a wider point that NB might well accept which is the increasingly narrow professional pool from which MPs are drawn. 


Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#9)

"Well first I don't accept that the role of teacher is not a real world job of calibre."

It is not of sufficient calibre when the job you are doing is dealing with the law and legal issues.

The problem many teachers have is what is called the "educational sausage". You go to nursery, then primary school, then secondary school, then university, then back to teaching - well you see what I mean. "Real world" experience (in the sense of something other than being in an educational process) is minimal. To a lesser extent th same can happen with Unions. Become politcally active, join a union, become involved in union organisation, become an MP....

I suspect that is what the original poster (madasafish IIRC?) meant.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#10)

I'm glad you picked up on that point that Stuart King made. But I'd say exactly the opposite: a teacher comes face to face with real life everyday and the dysfunctional families that are the bane of the education system and society in general. A teacher not only teaches but is  a social worker, an advisor and child carer as well. Being a teacher will have given Jacqui Smith experience of dealing with difficult people and groups particularly MP's and the Police Federation. She's qualified all right. Better than the umpteen lawyers that populate the House and can't see the wood for the trees when they legislate and miss the obvious things that won't work, or people won't stomach.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#12)

The points you make are good one and perfectly valid, but we are probably guilty of focusing on too narrow a context and your later point "...Better than the umpteen lawyers that populate the House and can't see the wood for the trees when they legislate ..." is probably more germane.

Setting aside specifics, politicans do need a better understanding of how we all do various things rather than theories of how we should react.

Some time ago (not here - elsewhere) somebody pointed out to me that Labour have less than 10 MPs who have ever been in a commercial business and yet they have passed rafts of legislation affecting commercial businesses.  I'm not sure the modern tory party is any better but it used to be the case (and we're going back 30, 40, 50+ years) that many tories were ex-businessmen.

The point I was trying to make is that there is not enough variety and experience in Parliament. There are plenty of theorists and ex-activists on both sides. 

 

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#13)

I take your point about businesses, particularly SME. The fact is Labour, does not understand small businesses and the pressures on them, or Entrepreneurship for that matter. And until it does, it is not going to atract that sector or gain its confidence. And we need them for a prosperous Britain if we are to compete globally. Its something that I have been banging on for years, as well as Welfare Reform. And I agree that we need a much more representaive Parliament. If we can't achieve that in the Commons then at least we could in the Second Chamber.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#14)

Jesus.

"entrepeneurship"
"compete globally"
"welfare reform"

What is the difference between us and the Tories exactly?

The first building block of socialism is that we see workers competing against each other to see how little they can work for as anathema to our basic ideals. That's what "competing globally" means.

If someone can't grasp that, I really wonder what would motivate them to join the Labour Party.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#15)

"What is the difference between us and the Tories exactly?"

In terms of small business? The tories *seem* to believe that small businesses simply need to to left to get on with it. Labour don't seem to understand that all the monitoring and legal compliance that big businesses can manage can sink a small business.

When Gordon took over there were two VAT rates - 0% and 17.5%. Now there are over 40 depending which sector of business you are in and which flat rate you qualify for etc. 

Another example - health and safety. In a large company there has to be a written health and safety policy together with documented risk-assessments for each activity each employee can be involved in. In a small company (say 20 employees in an office environment) the most risky thing is usually turning on the kettle or changing a plug, yet they have to have risk assessments for things that most of us do at home without a second thought.

The "joke" in small businesses is that the exemption for some of this stuff (5 employees) means that you can never have 6 employees because when you employ a 6th person you need to hire a 7th to monitor all the compliance issues for the other 6. It has more than a grain of truth.

If a 20 man business employs 2 people to manage compliance that's 10% of its staff unproductive. Small businesses are not gold mines with bottomless pits of money. Having 10% of your staff as pure overhead is anything but helpful.

 

"The first building block of socialism is that we see workers competing against each other to see how little they can work for..."

In small businesses workers work with each other because it is understood that a small business cannot afford internal strife, nor can they afford unproductive staff.

Why do many small businesses not hire young women in their early twenties? Because they simply cannot afford - and I mean afford in its financial sense - to have her go off for a year on maternity leave. Her experience and training might make replacing her very difficult or very expensive. You cannot just pick up the phone to the job centre and order up a warm body to fill her chair.

Many of the policies labour implement scale up ok, but they rarely scale down. 

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#16)

"The first building block of socialism is that we see workers competing against each other to see how little they can work for"

On reflection, this statement is probably your problem. It doesn't actually work that way. Quite the opposite in fact - I suggest you try some job interviewing.

 
I've yet to meet any applicant who volunteers to work for less than lowest offer to date......

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#17)

You misunderstand. As long as firms are competing with each other, the employees of each will be in competition with each other. The result is a constant downward pressure on wages. That is what socialists should oppose.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#19)

"As long as firms are competing with each other, the employees of each will be in competition with each other"

Small firms don't compete in that way - except for government tendering perhaps. That's a big company mentality. Many small firms offer a service and set a price - they don't worry about the competition in the way you suppose. People either buy at the price or they don't.

 

"The result is a constant downward pressure on wages. That is what socialists should oppose."

Why? You simply can't let wages continually rise. This government has acted as a brake on wages more than just about anything else I can think of. Many of the "stealth" taxes are business taxes because they don't show up on the payslip. To employ someone now costs a lot more than it did 10 years ago and what shows up on the payslip is  only a fraction of the costs involved.


BTW - for me this is not theoretical. The last big company I was an employee of was in 1995. Something like 75% of the workforce are in SMALL businesses.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#20)

Small firms do compete in that way. I worked in construction for some time and could write the book on competition driving wages down.

Wages can and should rise until all workers benefit fully from the profits of their work and the profit motive which keeps us as wage slaves is removed.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#24)

Well e10, if you want to wait until we've got rid of all competition before we can start being socialists, then you might be waiting a while. Global competition hasn't thus far led to a reduction in jobs available - they income spectrum tends to shift upwards, and its up to us to provide the skills needed to take advantage of that and the welfare safety nets to prevent harm arising from the inevitable dislocations competition brings. But I don't think global competition prevents the achievement of socialist goals.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#29)

Competition between workers is anathema to socialism.


Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#30)

Surely if that were logically the case, no progress whatsoever could be made towards socialism until all competition were abolished. If, as I suspect, redistribution, increased equality and increased democratic control are the centrepieces of socialism, and they can be achieved in a mixed economy, then where does that leave us? And what about competition between cooperatives?

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#31)

Of course not, competition can be abolished sector by sector as it once was in health and nearly has been in education. It would be a real fundamentalist who claims that no progress can be made without complete global socialism. Of course reforms can improve things: redistribution of wealth for example. But the fundamental problem which causes poverty and most of society's ills will not disappear until competition between workers does. Until then we need trade unions to prevent complete exploitation.

This is why cooperatives are an improvement on private companies: true, there is no person(s) profiting from the workers' labour, but the workers of one cooperative are still in a market and therefore competing with each other. It's a step in the right direction but not the solution.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#11)

How many MPs nowadays have backgrounds as union activists these days?

Anyway, by definition, you must have had a job to become active in your union in the first place.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#21)

Stuart: rebuke taken. Teachers are enormouosly important and should be appreciated and honored a lot more in our society.

If it were true that Ministers Preside and Civil Servants Decide then ministerial competence wouldn't matter, but sadly there is a lot of ministerial meddling and it really helps if ministers actually have some real understanding of what they are talking about, and are of significantly high calibre. Jaqui was a bascially undistinguished teacher and is manifestly out of her depth - the same goes sadly for most of the present Cabinet. 

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#23)

Not so much a rebuke I hope, as a difference of opinion.

I'd prefer to stick to generalisms rather than comment on specific Ministers (although I can and will defend the Home Sec if asked), but I agree with you that some Ministers overinvolve themselves in the day-to-day running of their departments and fail to offer the the level of strategic leadership that they should.

Of course, in an ideal world one would expect and assume that all ministers were the high achievers within their parliamentary party. The truth of course, as we know, is that in a Government - whatever the colour - Ministerial appointments will reflect a balance that takes into account the different wings within the party, regional considerations, gender representation and the calling in of past favours! The combination of these factors do not necessarily ensure that the best person for a job gets that job!

Also, reshuffling Ministers so frequently cannot help matters much either.



Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#22)

How about banning all formal employment and sending MPs out on day release placements instead - some as healthcare assistants, some as teaching assistants, some in transport etc? They could have a couple of weeks' induction when they became MPs to train them for these various posts, and then be sent out as and when. Ok, that's a pipe dream, but still, it'd be good...
It's also high time MPs started getting the average wage of their constituents: if teachers have to have performance-related pay, why not MPs? You should never do something to someone if you wouldn't have it done to yourself: at the minute, MPs are doing things to people which they'll never have to experience themselves, which is surely not on. Also, I can't imagine too many Tories would stand for Parliament if they'd only get 20K a year....

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#25)

"I can't imagine too many Tories would stand for Parliament if they'd only get 20K a year...."

I can't imagine that many Labour types would stand for Parliament if they only got £20K a year. 

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#26)

I think you would have to concede that the average Labour member earns a darn sight less than the average Tory member! And people join Labour because they are on the side of the poor; no one joins the Tories to pursue social justice, they do so because they don't like the state or some other such selfishness. Very few in the Labour movement are there solely out of self-interest, whereas that is the primary motive of Tories, surely? So no, I think you're wrong there - and the fact that the only previous 'MPs on a worker's wage' were Labour rather backs me up...After all, teaching is the most common profession among Labour MPs, which is hardly super-rich; I imagine most Tory MPs were in business or managerial jobs.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#27)

"After all, teaching is the most common profession among Labour MPs, which is hardly super-rich;"

The only teacher on less than £20K  is a newly qualified one. Most teachers earn considerably more.

Re: Time to curb outside earnings in Parliament? (#28)

Yeees...I'm well aware of how much teachers are paid thanks; I'm not unfamiliar with teaching...But I daresay you understood perfectly well what I was getting at anyway...