Spotlight on MPs and their priorities
WILL they ever learn? First there was cash for questions, then there was the Nolan investigation into standards in public life, then there was cash for honours, and expenses for duckhouses and bathplugs and the like, and now, despite the many earnest promises by politicians to do something about it, we have new cash-for-access claims. It keeps on coming round, said the Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, like some deeply unpleasant, unwelcome Groundhog Day. And every time it does, the already low reputation of politics sinks a little bit lower.
Both of the MPs involved in the new claims, Jack Straw and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, have denied, in different ways, any wrongdoing. Mr Straw, who was recorded saying he could use his influence to change EU rules for a commodity firm, said he had followed the rules. Sir Malcolm, who is said to have claimed he could arrange access to every British ambassador, insisted any allegations of wrongdoing were unfounded. In due course, the Standards Commissioner will decide if they are right.
In the meantime, the unpleasant affair reopens the question of what MPs should be paid (and indeed what kind of MPs we want) and to what extent they should be permitted to engage in lobbying and other activities. The UK Government promised it would act on lobbying, and it has tightened the rules for former ministers (they now cannot lobby for two years after leaving office). But the promised statutory register of consultant lobbyists has still to be implemented and the rules on who needs to sign up and what should be declared are far from clear. That gap should be filled as soon as possible.
In his response to the new claims, the Prime Minister said he did not favour a ban or too tight a restriction on outside interests because that would exclude someone running family businesses, for example, and there will probably be some public sympathy for that. Banning outside interests could accelerate the move away from the days when MPs came from a wider range of backgrounds and lead to more age-ofmachine politicians who go through the familiar routine of politics degree then research post then MP.
Is a cap on outside earnings the answer? It is not such a bad idea – the US Congress has a cap of around 15 per cent of regular earnings and Ed Miliband favours a version of that in the UK. But a better approach would be to tackle the issue of MPs’ pay. Sir Malcolm’s comments that it is unrealistic to expect someone to go through their parliamentary career for £60,000 will stick in the craw of many, particularly when it is so much more than the average UK salary of £26,500. But the pay of a backbench MP falls below that of some secondary head teachers and senior civil servants and in the context of central London, the disparity is ever greater. The danger of leaving pay at its current level is it feeds the monster that has led to cash-foraccess. Longer term, the proportion of independently wealthy MPs could also increase.
Only an incremental increase to MPs’ salaries would be acceptable at a time when many constituents still face frozen wages, but a reasonable rise combined with clearer rules on lobbying could help the Commons move on. It might also remind MPs what is expected of them: they should be paid well, but in return, they should be working full-time to represent their constituents, not firms promising a nice daily rate.