Murky moonlighting

Multi-tasking deceptions

At last MPs’ outside jobs have grabbed the public’s attention. I will be burbling about this on BBC Radio Four today. The Daily Telegraphs has raised the issue even though their entire story has long been in the public domain.

I was discussing these issues with Sir Paul Beresford MP who moonlights as a dentist. His defence was MPs get valuable experience from outside jobs. Yes.  But why pocket the money for the experience? Twelve years ago, I addressed this problem in my book Commons’ Knowledge.

"Odd sums of money arrive in the post.

Cheques from the media interviews, for writing or market research companies are not really earned. They are usually paid for doing the job for which MPs are already paid.

If they lie heavily on the conscience, they can be diverted into a fund for excess income. There are two answers. Either set up a proper charitable trust with defined aims and trustees into which the full sums can be deposited. A simpler course is to pay tax on the cash, then deposit in a separate charitable account with independent signatories.

Either way the sums quickly accumulate into substantial amounts for worthwhile giving. They avoid dependence on outside money and ensure that work priorities are not distorted by financial temptations. Always insist that any charitable giving is anonymous. It absolves the giver of the insulting charge of trying to buy votes and it reduces the calls of the fund from unworthy causes."

It’s advice I have followed myself – including the modest income from my books. I fund this blog from my salary not from expenses. Writing is part of my job. Paul Beresford appears to have forgotten that MPs can already gain hands-on experience of outside work. There are bodies like the Parliament Trust that give MPs the chance to spend time with commercial companies or the military one. The experience is great but  there is no additional income.

Part of the evidence I have submitted to Kelly’s Standards committee asks for MPs salaries to be adjusted if they are being paid for additional jobs. This should stir up a little interest. It is a perfectly fair request. No one can do do  or more full-time jobs.

"An MP’s job is a full time one.  This principle should underpin all measures to reform the system of remuneration.  It is known that some MPs earn up to  £250,000 a year from “moonlighting”. Those who take additional paid employment, which could be considered a second job, should declare the hours spent on these commitments, and the income received, so that voters can consider if they are able to carry out the core job of an MP.  Parliamentary salaries should be adjusted to reflect the additional income derived from second jobs.  There are former ministers who are still Members of Parliament who are paid for giving advice to industries for which they were formerly responsible.  Former Ministers and former senior civil servants should be barred from taking jobs in those areas in which they served.  PASC condemned this  ‘revolving door’ process in January this year."

Reforms to end moonlighting are at least as important as changes in the expenses rules. They go to the heart of the motivation on MPs. How many of the candidates in the next General Election will seek votes by admitting they intend to be part-time MPs?

Allotment peace?

There is great interest in the future of Mrs Avery’s allotment. The anger is widespread and deeply felt. The local paper, the South Wales Argus, has written a sympathetic story.

A representative of the Council has said verbally but not in writing that the allotment will not be ‘cleared’ on Monday. One of my correspondents attempted but failed to contact the Chairman of the Council.  Another creatively suggested that we help Mrs Avery to plant flowers that are edible.

If the bulldozers arrived to clear the site, the national press will be there to greet them.  I hope this ham fisted Community Council will come to their senses at their meeting on Wednesday. Otherwise they will be singed by the ridicule and contempt of the whole country.

Comments

[Tony]

I think it you want to be an MP you should be full time - end of ..
I was interested to see Ed Balls still denying that there would have to be spending cuts after the election - this spinning is really quite insulting - the figures show that something will HAVE to give - either we get real spendng cuts or taxes are going to have to rise - a lot !
Be nice if politicians who claim to 'get it' would understand that and perhaps be a little more truthful.
Balls is just talking balls in my opinion

[Paul Flynn]

Fair points Tony. I was generous to Paul Beresford on the World this weekend. I did not mention the atrocious voting record of the moonlighting dentist MP.

[HuwOS]

"either we get real spendng cuts or taxes are going to have to rise"

I doubt it is an either or situation.
Both will have to happen, all we can do is hope the electorate vote people in who will do everything they can to protect the needs of the least well off when the cuts come and have the sense to raise the necessary taxes for those who can best cope with them.

Ah who am I kidding, people will vote for the ones who promise to cut taxes and cut benefits to those terrible people on the dole and on disability benefit, blaming immigration will be optional.

[Tony]

Paul, were you thinking of voting in the amenedment to the Finance Bill for the 500,000 people still left worse off by the 10 tax change?

Seems to me that would be worth doing if possible

And you're right Huw - I personally think it will be both (tax increase and spending cuts) and that the government that wins the next election will be the most unpopular ever within 6 months.

But if you and I can see it then hopefully others will too and 'won't get fooled again'

[Paul Flynn]

Frank Field is proposing this amendment Tony. I have said I will support it.

[Paul Flynn]

It is going to be grim HuwOs but I do not believe that benefits for the disabled and unemployed will be cut. Not when Trident and ID cards are begging to cut.

[Kay Tie]

"It is going to be grim HuwOs but I do not believe that benefits for the disabled and unemployed will be cut. Not when Trident and ID cards are begging to cut."

With particular reference to ID cards, will you be voting against the Statutory Instruments that give effect to the regulations for these cards? The specific regulations are:

* The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Application and Issue of ID Card and Notification of Changes) Regulations 2009

* The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Prescribed Information) Regulations 2009

* The Identity Cards Act 2006 (Provision of Information without Consent) Regulations 2009

These regulations are, in essence, the ID scheme itself (the 2006 Act merely being an enabling act). If you vote these down, the ID card scheme falls.

Since Alan Johnson himself has cold feet, I cannot believe that the Government is up for a fight to head off a rebellion on this. Quite why they aren't kicking in into the long grass, like they are with the Post Office plans, I don't know. But one can never underestimate Gordon Brown's capability for self-harm. Perhaps he believes the crooked Home Office surveys and thinks this is a popular measure that will undermine the Tories' law-n-order credentials. He got it terribly wrong on 42 days detention. He's wrong on this, too.

[George Laird]

Dear Paul

Sir Paul Beresford MP moonlights as a dentist.

Is it little surprise that the public hold MPs in such contempt when their role is a full time position and they singely fail to honour that?

Beresford is standing in the way of the people getting proper representation.

He should resign.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

[Paul Flynn]

KayTie, it is rarely possible to vote against statutory instruments unless one is one of the 30 or so that are one the SI committee. As far as I know I am not at the moment. But I am against ID cards.

[Kay Tie]

"it is rarely possible to vote against statutory instruments unless one is one of the 30 or so that are one the SI committee."

It's why these enabling bills are so dangerous. One of the ways Parliament has been emasculated.

I presume there's always a chance at tabling a wrecking amendment on some other bill. What about the finance bill? Part of the 10% tax amendment (to find the money to pay for the compensation)?