The Observer view on parliamentary standards
The 2008 expenses scandal irrevocably damaged the reputation of British parliamentarians. It was only ever a minority of MPs who abused the system, claiming for duck houses, moat clearing and property renovations. Yet the revelations that a significant number milked the expenses system to get the most they could within the letter of the rules, and that a small handful broke the law, cemented many voters’ views that most MPs are primarily motivated by self-interest.
That scandal should have been a reset moment, reminding MPs that the privilege of their office requires them to uphold the highest standards of integrity and to maintain the spirit, not just the letter, of the rules. But while there were many long-overdue improvements made to the rules around expenses, including the creation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and greater levels of transparency, the revelations about the number of MPs who are financially benefiting as a result of their office through questionable arrangements show that many did not learn the lesson of the expenses scandal.
Owen Paterson’s egregious breaking of the rules on lobbying – and Boris Johnson’s botched attempt to help him evade accountability – has paved the way for renewed scrutiny into what some MPs still regard as legitimate ways to top up their salaries. The former attorney general Sir Geoffrey Cox has made at least £6m in additional income, including through practising as a lawyer, since 2005 and this is almost certainly an under-estimation. Some of that income has been derived by representing the premier of the British Virgin Islands in a British government investigation into corruption in the overseas territory; in a video, he appears to have done some of this work from the parliamentary estate, which would be against the rules, but which he denies. He spent considerable amounts of time away from parliament, in the Caribbean, while it was sitting, in order to do this work during the pandemic and made use of pandemic-related proxy voting rules to represent his constituents while absent. Cox has also been renting out the London home he bought with taxpayer assistance, instead charging taxpayers more than £22,000 a year for the rent on another flat. This is an arrangement that remains within the rules, which allows MPs who already own London properties partly funded by taxpayers under the old expenses system to act as landlords while they rent out other properties.
It is not just Cox. Open Democracy has reported that the Conservative MP Marcus Fysh has a financial interest in a company that sells care insurance and tried to amend legislation to allow the government to use funds raised by the health and care levy to create cash incentives for insurance providers. Laurence Robertson, another Conservative MP, is paid £24,000 a year – £200 an hour – by the Betting and Gaming Council and has used parliamentary questions to warn ministers against introducing stronger gambling laws. Other MPs have taken lucrative private sector consultancy contracts: Sajid Javid earned £150,000 a year working for JP Morgan before he was appointed health secretary; Andrew Mitchell earns more than £180,000 a year for just over 30 days’ work advising various private sector businesses; Julian Smith earned £144,000 a year working for three companies including a hydrogen distributions company. Many more MPs have earned tens of thousands from their work outside parliament.
The arguments for allowing MPs to undertake lucrative work outside parliament are self-serving in the extreme. We are supposed to believe that unless we allow backbench MPs to supplement their annual salary of more than £81,000 with additional work, this will compromise the quality of our elected officials.
There is an argument for paying MPs more to bring their pay into line with other very senior public sector jobs, given their working hours, the nature of the job and their responsibilities. But if public service in the context of a generous remuneration package is not a sufficiently motivating factor for people to be an MP, they should not be in parliament. We do not hear the same arguments in favour of allowing headteachers or police superintendents to hold second jobs and for good reason. Allowing MPs to make lucrative sums from outside work opens up the risk of serious conflicts of interest that impede their capacity to represent their constituents. It encourages them to prioritise the needs of their clients above those of their constituents. The idea that some would not enter parliament without being able to boost their earnings ignores the fact that many are only able to command these positions and this level of compensation because they are MPs.
The solution is simple: at the minimum, a cap should be introduced on outside earnings, which would allow MPs to undertake a very limited amount of modestly paid work. Rules on lobbying need to be more tightly enforced and the sanctions for breaking those rules increased to ensure MPs err on the side of caution in terms of taking on work that could pose a conflict of interest.
But the huge unspoken problem is that we have a prime minister who – far from setting an example – is one of the worst culprits in parliament in terms of his lack of integrity and probity. He has been investigated by the parliamentary standards commissioner more than any other MP in the last three years; today, we report fresh revelations about his relationship with Jennifer Arcuri, whose company received thousands of pounds of public money while he was mayor of London. He embodies the damaging culture of entitlement that needs to be addressed. While he may eventually pay a personal political cost, the corruption of his premiership continues to damage voters’ trust in the political system.
Many are only able to command these positions and this level of compensation because of the fact that they are MPs