Caerphilly MP Wayne David has called for an end to second jobs for MPs after the General Election, following Channel 4 Dispatches and Daily Telegraph revelations about Malcom Rifkind and Jack Straw.
The pair were accused of using their influence as MPs to secure extra income from a private company during interviews they thought would lead to second jobs.
Both stood down from their respective parliamentary parties as investigations take place.
Mr David said: “I believe strongly that Members of Parliament should be full-time MPs.
“Since I was first elected in 2001 I have worked solely for my constituents and it makes me angry when I see other MPs who have lucrative second jobs.
“For these MPs there is a potential conflict of interest between the interests of the constituents and the companies they work for.
“There is also an enormous amount of constituency work which all MPs should be engaged in when not in Westminster. Being an MP should be a full-time job.
“MPs’ salaries are more than adequate and those who stand for Parliament should be motivated by a wish to serve the public.”
This is laughable. If MP’s are motivated to serve the people there would be no whip system since all MP’s would vote according to the general will they manage to measure in their constituency. However, as we know this is not the case. I do not mind if it is not the case, but I would like to see MP’s stop telling us it is the case they are motivated to serve the people.
Moving to the point at hand, an MP’s salary is not very large and with 5 year terms the last year is spent not really doing anything. There is no reason MP’s cannot have a second job working for themselves since that eliminates the bias issue. Some Labour MP’s, who were previously bricklayers and builders, retain their jobs when becoming an MP but cut down on their hours instead working on select projects. Are you really advocating the position of not allowing a working-class MP from building a mate’s conservatory for a couple thousand?
This is laughable. If MP’s are motivated to serve the people there would be no whip system since all MP’s would vote according to the general will they manage to measure in their constituency. However, as we know this is not the case. I do not mind if it is not the case, but I would like to see MP’s stop telling us it is the case they are motivated to serve the people.
Moving to the point at hand, an MP’s salary is not very large and with 5 year terms the last year is spent not really doing anything. There is no reason MP’s cannot have a second job working for themselves since that eliminates the bias issue. Some Labour MP’s, who were previously bricklayers and builders, retain their jobs when becoming an MP but cut down on their hours instead working on select projects. Are you really advocating the position of not allowing a working-class MP from building a mate’s conservatory for a couple thousand?
I pretty much agree with what Wayne David says here, I have worked for several firms where my contract stipulated that I cannot do outside work as this would breach my contract of employment. Why should MPs be any different?
That said I am against a blanket ban on outside work as sometimes an MP must demonstrate continuing professional development or the practise their skills in order to be eligible to continue their work upon leaving the House of Commons, for whatever reason.
The problem arises when there is a danger of a conflict of interest, such as working for outside agencies on the sole basis of influence gained by holding public office, such as advertised by Jack Straw and doubtless many others. By all means continue as a bricklayer or dentist but do not expect to be paid thousands of pounds per day just because you are a party hack that knows the people that pass laws and have control of the public purse. The two types of work are a world apart.
I pretty much agree with what Wayne David says here, I have worked for several firms where my contract stipulated that I cannot do outside work as this would breach my contract of employment. Why should MPs be any different?
That said I am against a blanket ban on outside work as sometimes an MP must demonstrate continuing professional development or the practise their skills in order to be eligible to continue their work upon leaving the House of Commons, for whatever reason.
The problem arises when there is a danger of a conflict of interest, such as working for outside agencies on the sole basis of influence gained by holding public office, such as advertised by Jack Straw and doubtless many others. By all means continue as a bricklayer or dentist but do not expect to be paid thousands of pounds per day just because you are a party hack that knows the people that pass laws and have control of the public purse. The two types of work are a world apart.
Wayne David is correct.
It appears some MP`s are unable to formulate in their own minds, that they are paid, by us, a substancial salary, (which we pay them), extraordinary level of `expenses` both personal and professional expenses, (which we pay them),soley to represent their constituents. Most do that to some degree, sucessfully when they try their best.
There are those amongst them who regard their role as MP`s as a secondary professional role in their public, professional, lives. They are unable to pass the conflict of interest test because the conflicting roles they `play` are normally indivisable, in that, in most cases they would not be of any use whatsoever as, `advisers`, `consultants` or otherwise, ` boardroom voting fodder`, or their names used as headed paper embelishment, if they were not MPs and their primary role as a well paid, elected, public representatives did not inflate their otherwise deflated ego`s.
Wayne is correct, remove those opportunities which are likely to present a Conflict of Interest to our MP`s, some of them are clearly unable to do so themselves.
`
Wayne David is correct.
It appears some MP`s are unable to formulate in their own minds, that they are paid, by us, a substancial salary, (which we pay them), extraordinary level of `expenses` both personal and professional expenses, (which we pay them),soley to represent their constituents. Most do that to some degree, sucessfully when they try their best.
There are those amongst them who regard their role as MP`s as a secondary professional role in their public, professional, lives. They are unable to pass the conflict of interest test because the conflicting roles they `play` are normally indivisable, in that, in most cases they would not be of any use whatsoever as, `advisers`, `consultants` or otherwise, ` boardroom voting fodder`, or their names used as headed paper embelishment, if they were not MPs and their primary role as a well paid, elected, public representatives did not inflate their otherwise deflated ego`s.
Wayne is correct, remove those opportunities which are likely to present a Conflict of Interest to our MP`s, some of them are clearly unable to do so themselves.
`