Morning:
8°c
MPs face having to sign 'pre-nup' deals with voters on outside jobs
Joe Murphy and Paul Waugh29 Oct 2009
MPs face having to sign "pre-nup" agreements with voters to declare if they plan to make money from working on the side.
Standards watchdog Sir Christopher Kelly is believed to be urging that all election candidates should have to make a declaration on whether they intend to be full-time MPs or hold part-time jobs and directorships.
Sir Christopher has come under heavy pressure from Labour to give a ruling on whether MPs should be allowed to hold second jobs in future.
The idea of a pre-election declaration appears to be a compromise between those who want part-time jobs banned and others who say that that would drive talented and high-earning individuals out of politics.
The move emerged as fury grew among MPs about the Kelly reforms and the way that they have been leaked. There was also continuing anger at Prime Minister Gordon Brown for decreeing that MPs will not be allowed to vote on the plans.
Meanwhile, dozens of MPs say they will stand down from Parliament at the next election if Sir Christopher axes their "golden parachute" severance payoffs, worth up to £64,000.
Senior MP Sir Stuart Bell told the Standard: "MPs are in an absolute quandary. The leaks have been devastating and many MPs are questioning what their future can be."
He said some were calling for a change in parliamentary hours to get rid of late sittings "to accommodate the Kelly recommendations" which include stripping London MPs of the right to buy a second home.
The Labour MP, a member of the Commons ruling committee, also warned of a hardening mood at Westminster against the reforms package: "Because of the leaks, Sir Christopher Kelly's committee is discrediting itself and making his recommendations less credible."
Among the rumoured swingeing cutbacks in MPs' perks and allowances are a ban on mortgage interest claims, scrapping first class tickets on planes and trains, abolishing the £10,000 communications allowance and ending a £25 a day subsistence allowance. Most MPs would be allowed to rent a home or stay in a hotel.
One Labour MP said: "If the severance payments are phased out after this election, I will lose more than £60,000 that is currently in my contract. We are facing years in opposition and it makes me wonder if it is really worthwhile to remain as an MP for another parliament. I could retire now on a full pension with the £60,000 and the only people who would lose out are my constituents, who benefit from my experience."
Another MP said: "If we lose every allowance going, the career of being an MP will begin to be very unappealing to people. It is a lot of hard work and late hours, made worthwhile by a feeling that what you do is important. If we are made to feel like criminals, I'm off."
Veteran Tory Sir Nicholas Winterton, who is retiring, attacked Sir Christopher. He said: "How much is he paid? What's his civil service payment? How many jobs does he do? Why is he to dictate?
"What experience does he have of being an MP, the hours worked, the costs? He is determined to hit MPs on the head and undermine them."
Reader views (8)
"There was also continuing anger at Prime Minister Gordon Brown for decreeing that MPs will not be allowed to vote on the plans."
Now they know how we feel about being denied a vote on the EU Constitution (Sorry, Lisbon Treaty)
- No Sympathy For Corrupt Lying Mps, London, 29/10/2009 20:13
Report abuse
Being an MP has absolutely NOTHING to do with representing the interests of the electorate.
Being an MP has EVERYTHING to do with sticking your fat smelly nose as far as possible into the stinking trough of obscene expenses and grabbing all you can - and to hell with Joe Public.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR, 29/10/2009 13:28
Report abuse
They are, in the main, a nasty bunch of talentless self-serving spivs.
In any other occupation they would have been sacked for the abuse of the spirit of their expense system.
They have lied to us, they have cheated us, if is costs £60k to get rid of each of them then I would think it money well spent.
Now, what about the house of Lords and when will we see the police actually prosecute some of the worst offenders such as Jacqui Smith?
- Newman, Tunbridge Wells, 29/10/2009 12:16
Report abuse
- Ian, Reading, England
Sure Ian - you obviously have undertaken considerable research on your theory, just a few exceptions to the general rule - Cameron, Osborne etc, just small players.
Back to the point, what stops these people with real life skills from disclosing their interests - it might be that people will question why they are voting for that individual?
- David, London, 29/10/2009 12:06
Report abuse
The irony here is that those that are calling for this declaration are predominately Labour; they joined the Political Class at University, and never had jobs in the real world. They consider themselves the ruling class.
On the other side you get those that have life experience and stay in contact with real people, but as a consequence have a part time jobs outside Parliament.
What a lot of people miss is that those MP’s not directly involved in government are not what could be called fully employed. Parliament last year sat for just 165 days and that would have been the maximum working days if they turned up at all sessions.
Creating career politicians is to divorce government from the People, and to sever the meaning of democracy from the People. It might at first seem perverse, but unless all our MP’s are involved in activities/work outside politics they can never do the job we expect. Being told how we must act by people that from cradle to the grave are active members of the Political Class is hardly government by the people for the people.
The most important part about having a democracy is that it is the People that get to choose the candidates – then they control how MP’s act and react to their constituents. At the moment it is the Party Leaders that decides who they will let you vote for – that is not democracy.
- Ian, Reading, England, 29/10/2009 11:18
Report abuse
A problem for the consultant/executive brigade.
They need to be MPs so that they can land these positions but will argue that they could earn a lot more outside politics, a paradox in many cases?
So much for public duty.
That said I would suggest that this is a step in the right direction.
- Sidney, West London, 29/10/2009 10:23
Report abuse
Just remember that being an MP and representing the opinions of those that you have the privilege to represent is not a commercial opportunity or a right to make an income. You do the job because you have a vocation and have been found by your neighbourhood peers to be a good person to represent their wishes.
Now if you do not like the commercial terms then do not stand, certainly pass this privilege of representation to somebody who will be proud and honoured to take only the salary and subsidise this right by their own pocket. Perhaps this is the very best method to ensure that MP's only have a short term in office.
We want MPs with real world experience, gained before they arrive at the doors of parliament, not during. They cannot represent their electorate’s interests and their own, they must choose and then strictly honour any choice of representation above career.
- James, City of London, 29/10/2009 10:12
Report abuse
They are grossly overpaid for what is a very part-time job. No qualifications or training are necessary to do the job (and it is evident that most of them have none). When they are kicked out at the next election it will be intereting to see how many of them manage to find such lucrative jobs in the private sector.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 29/10/2009 10:02
Report abuse
