The row over MPS’ jobs is wrong-headed
There is a great danger as MPS grapple with the aftermath of the Owen Paterson affair that they compound the damage already inflicted on Parliament’s reputation with yet more errors. Some are now proposing that all outside interests should be forbidden and that standards oversight should be fully independent. The mob-like pursuit of Sir Geoffrey Cox QC for working as a barrister is an indication of how wrong-headed this debate is becoming. It began with the former attorney-general being denounced for spending several months in the British Virgin Islands assisting a public inquiry and voting via proxy in the Commons. When it became apparent that this did not breach the procedures of Parliament the target was switched to his apparent use of a Commons office to conduct a meeting remotely on the internet. Yet it is not obvious to anyone outside Westminster that Sir Geoffrey is on parliamentary premises, so he was not exploiting this position for his own commercial benefit.
The argument against second jobs seems to be that MPS should focus entirely on looking after constituents’ personal interests. But that is less the function of national legislators than of local councillors, who MPS increasingly resemble. In any case, it was hardly a secret to Sir Geoffrey’s constituents that he continued to act as a barrister. It also seems to be forgotten that all MPS who are government ministers have second jobs, many so time-consuming that routine constituency work is impossible.
The rules are clear. MPS can have paid outside interests but what is not allowed is paid advocacy. Mr Paterson was found by the Commons standards committee to have broken this rule which was why it recommended his suspension. The Prime Minister’s botched efforts to overturn this has triggered a new hue and cry against all MPS who have outside interests (except those who work with the NHS, which is again exempt from any strictures). Perversely, ministers initially defended Mr Paterson even though he had patently broken the rules but are reluctant to support Sir Geoffrey who appears to have stayed within them.
There is nothing inherently wrong with MPS having outside interests or employment. Indeed, it can give them a better grasp of matters on which they legislate. In the case of Sir Geoffrey, his attachment to his legal reputation has had clear benefits for the public. When asked to give his legal opinion on Theresa May’s disastrous Brexit deal, despite huge political pressure he was unwilling to fall into line with the then prime minister’s wishes.