'Preventing MPs from selling their souls to the highest bidder is a necessary step in democratising parliament.'

Prem Sikka is an Emeritus Professor of Accounting at the University of Essex and the University of Sheffield, a Labour member of the House of Lords, and Contributing Editor at Left Foot Forward.

Many of our social problems are caused by the disconnection between the people and parliament. People are shunning the ballot-box and feel that MPs don’t represent them. In the July 2024 UK general election only 59.7% of the registered voters actually voted.

The prime duty of MPs, and all legislators, is to serve the people but for many it is a route to riches through second jobs in the form of lucrative corporate directorships and advisory roles. Second jobs are just another name for institutionalised bribery and must be banned.

MPs taking second jobs serve their paymasters by asking questions and securing information for their paymasters, arrange meetings with ministers, providing access to policymakers, thwart threatening legislation and keep unwelcome issues off the political agenda. Conflict of interests is inevitable. Normal people can’t compete in the auction for influence. Citizens writing to MPs are frequently told that they cannot help them because they don’t reside within the MP’s constituency boundary. The same MPs have no qualms about representing corporations and the rich not residing in their constituency, because they pay

The Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto said that “The absence of rules on second jobs also means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them”..

An MP’s job is full-time and a demanding one. Compared to median annual wage of £29,664 for workers, MPs receive an annual salary of £91,346 plus the costs of running an office, employing support staff, having somewhere to live in London or their constituency, and travelling between Parliament and their constituency. One in ten MPs also work as local councillors and increase their pay. Too many don’t regard MPs position as a full-time job and chase personal riches.

The register for members’ financial interests after the July 2024 election is still emerging but the past provides some guidance. An analysis by The Economist showed that between 2010 and 2024 MPs spent a collective total of 50,000 hours on second jobs and collected £27m in fees. In addition to the £27m, they also earned £38m from practising law, medicine or consulting. Senior MPs demand premium prices. For example, former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and Health Secretary Matt Hancock demanded £10,000 a day to further the interests of a fake South Korean company.

In the last parliament, around 90 out of 360 Conservative MPs had second jobs, compared to five out of 199 Labour MPs, and two each from the Scottish National Party and Liberal Democrats. The proportions may well change now that Labour is in government.

In general, MPs are required to disclose earnings from outside employment in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, the disclosure requirements are weak. For example, those operating through Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs) are not required to disclose their share of profits, and shareholdings of less than 15% are not disclosed. In any case, the disclosures do not eliminate conflicts, corporate capture or degradation of democracy.

MPs do not need permission from their constituents to take second jobs and there are no legally enforceable restrictions. The Code of Conduct requires that they “must not provide, or agree to provide, paid parliamentary advice, including undertaking, or agreeing to undertake services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant”. The rulebook exempted advice on public policy and current affairs; and advice in general terms about how Parliament works.  In July 2024, MPs agreed to remove these exemptions, with effect from October 2024. However, it is all open to interpretation.

There is no ban on second jobs and consultancies are easily replaced by paid media work, books, guest appearances at corporate events, lectures and speeches, all intended to enrol MPs to serve corporate interests.

This is especially lucrative for senior MPs. For example, former Prime Minister Boris Johnson collected £4.3m from speeches in the nine months between being ousted from office and standing down as an MP. Ideological enrolment also results in TV shows and columns in newspapers. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, received £189,300 for four hours work from Direct Bullion for a brand ambassador role in which he praises the role of gold as a tax free investment. His non-MP work generated income of £547,583 in 2024. Former Health Secretary disappeared for weeks from parliament to take part in a TV reality show and collected a fee of £320,000. Another Conservative MP, later a Minister, appeared on a TV reality show and refused to register fee in the Register of Members’ Interests. Lee Anderson, another Reform UK MP, hosts a TV show for payment of £100,000.

Would an MP with a regular newspaper column speak against his/her paymaster for hacking into innocent person’s email or phone? Should they be promoting tax avoidance vehicles or corporate interests? Should they be promoting corporate interests at the expense of their constituents’ welfare?

In line with its election manifesto promise the government has created the Modernisation Committee and on 12 September, it said that it will look at the “tightening of the rules on second jobs for members of the Commons”.

A total ban on second jobs is needed but unlikely as MPs will make exceptions to protect their incomes, which will undermine the spirit of any reforms. Some say that a total ban would encourage high calibre MPs to quit parliament. Well, if they can’t live on £91,346 and represent people then they need a dose of reality and see how normal folks make ends meet. There are plenty of other good people available do that job.

Some argue that it is desirable for MPs to have some experience of business life, and that this improves quality of debates and legislative scrutiny. The evidence for this is scarce. Interestingly, they rarely volunteer to work for charities, hospices, food banks, trade unions and housing associations, possibly because there is no money in it.  Even if a small number take-up second jobs, that still undermines confidence in parliament. The argument about business experience is being merely used to camouflage the ride on the gravy train.

Some would like the MPs to continue with second jobs but within “reasonable limits”. Inevitably, there would be haggling over the limits. Some have suggested 10–20 hours a week is a reasonable limit. There is no mechanism for enforcing this limit as the Commons relies upon self-reporting. An hours-based approach takes no account of money, favours, cognitive capture of MPs or the scale of political sales. Such limits will be ineffective in curbing the sale of legislators to the highest bidders.

Some argue that the tenure of an MP is short and after leaving parliament they may return to their professional career. Therefore they should be permitted to continue to practice as a lawyer, architect, surveyor or an accountant. Such arguments may have some validity but are also a fig-leaf for pursuit for private interests.

Allowing MPs to continue with professional careers need not lead to financial enrichment and subservience to corporations and the rich. They should not benefit from such second jobs. All payments received should go to a newly established Foundation for Democracy. This should apply to all income from any second job.

At set intervals, the accumulated funds should be distributed to political parties in accordance with a formula based upon their share of the vote and party membership. This way, MPs can continue with professional careers, broadcasting and other hobbies but won’t receive financial benefits. To prevent any underhanded deals, MPs should be prevented in their post-legislative career from working for these employers for five years after leaving parliament or reeving any financial benefit.

No matter how it is dressed-up, second jobs are about the sale of MPs and political influence. They are nothing to do with serving the people or democracy. Second jobs have normalized corporate capture and corrupt practices and must be banned. Of course those who have got used to self-enrichment will oppose such proposals, but wiser souls know that confidence in parliament can’t be restored with empty gestures. Preventing MPs from selling their souls to the highest bidder is a necessary step in democratising parliament.

Image credit: Diliff -Creative Commons

Comments are closed.