Should MPs be able to have another job?

We should pay them more. They shouldn’t be allowed to have other paid work. Head teachers, GP’s earn more than MPs

They often ‘ employ’ wives, family members etc too which keeps the extra expenses in the family.

On the other hand, some local Councillors often have full time jobs.
My son is one and he earns substantially more in total than an MP.
Some MP's are on local councils as well.

No they shouldn't have another income. If Michael Ellis can do it they all can. Click on the image. He ranks 1st out of all 650 MPs for responding to constituents' e-mails. He doesn't waste money and he hasn't got another job. Oh yes, and he's Conservative. The other MPs should take note.

ayse

silverlining48

We don’t pay anyone enough.,.and the rest of us would be thrilled to be paid what MPs are. Lots of people work very hard in difficult but socially important roles yet not financially rewarded, or even much appreciated. No power or glory there.

Historically I think MPs used to have jobs and did unpaid parliamentary work in their spare time. They were then remunerated and gave up their jobs/ professions to solely work as MPs.

I think their basic pay with all the extras they claim is plenty and there will always be those who will dabble in outside business however much salary they get.

I understood that payment for being an MP was instituted so that ordinary working people were able to represent their constituency and have an income as it meant giving up their paid employment in industry. I think they were paid the average of a working man’s income. Members who had other resources were able to keep that income and their other professions.

I believe MPs should not be able to pursue other occupations in addition to being an MP. That’s why we pay them over the National mean income so they can represent us and undertake all their parliamentary duties.

Perhaps MPs pay should be means tested so that only those who need the income receive it. Maybe then there would be less sleaze and more concentrated minds on the problems of today which are many. It would also save the tax payer money.

So in other words, if youre not well off you can get paid. If you have a fraction over the means test you have to work for free.
Well I’ve heard it all now.

I think it would be difficult to monitor. For example, what would there be to stop an MP owning property to rent in a spouse's name?

Rather than trying to undermine the parliamentary watchdog, I think the role need strengthening.

You know when you misread something?
With my mind on Covid boosters and this mornings flu jab , I misread that as “Should MP’s have another jab “
And my first thought was, sadly there’s no vaccine against sleaze, selfishness and hypocrisy.

No. of course they shouldn't. its a conflict of interest and they should be working only for their constituents

Some MPs continue to work shifts as doctors and nurses.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-51975661

I don't think it's a bad thing if MPs have the time to keep in touch with their roots. Caroline Lucas is probably exceptional because she's the only Green MP and just about the only Green politician with national standing.

However, maybe the number of hours spent on outside work should be limited and the work itself should be very strictly regulated. If MPs are found to be breaking the rules, there should be serious sanctions.

Even if they were stopped from working, there are ways they can earn money - dodgy or otherwise - by nominating somebody else to be paid (in theory). I don't see how MPs could be stopped from earning money by dealing in shares or property etc., which have just as much potential for fraud.

This is the REGISTER OF MEMBERS’ FINANCIAL INTERESTS as at 1 November 2021:

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/211101/211101.pdf

How about if they could work a certain number of hours, 'to keep their hand in' but had to donate the money they earned to charity? And pay all MPs a better wage. £80,000 might seem a lot, but it isn't that much for the responsibility they have.

Also no donations in cash or kind higher than a fixed sum; the same sum for all MPs at all levels.

Goodness, wouldn't some of them squeal...

I looked up Micheal Ellis, whom Chestnut mentioned as exemplary.

He no longer works as a barrister. However, he does hold shares in two companies. The register doesn't say how much he earns from the shares.

I'm not disputing that Mr Ellis is a good MP and not suggesting he's doing anything wrong, but the point is that he could be drawing a significant income from those shares, without actually working. Any MP with a small business could do the same.

I think any legislation would need to be more complex than just banning paid work. I don't think it's as easy as people think. A number of MPs own property, which presumably wouldn't count as "work". Boris Johnson gets paid royalties for work already written before he became an MP, which couldn't be stopped either. That would work well for any pop star or writer who wants to be an MP.

Something does need doing, but I'm not an accountancy/finance expert, so I'm not quite sure what. Like some others, I think the salary should increase (the metro mayors get paid more), but there need to be some restrictions on outside income. Maybe there should also be league tables of performance, based on number of votes cast, constituency surgeries, etc., as there are for schools and hospital trusts.

I woke up and couldn't get back to sleep, so looked through the list of MPs' interests.

It appears that any money which is earned from paid work has to be declared and the amount given.

However, money from property, shares and investments over a certain value have to be declared, but there is no monetary value given. I suspect this group are earning a higher income than those who are doing some actual work.

They should definitely have to declare all unearned income as well as earned income. Maybe could work in public service, such as the doctor MP who works in her local A and E at the weekends, but not for private companies.

I am opposed to MPs having second jobs. However I do think that a GP MP doing half a day in a surgery, a dr in a hospital, a teacher doing half a day in school, a solicitor or barrister doing same would enhance the overall knowledge of HoC.
The rest could do community policing, social work, teaching assistant work or hands on work in a hospital. Working on buses and trains would be useful. Maybe then we'd feel MPs had contact with the general public at large, not just a few individuals.

Absolutely not. I know a politician who says he would still have work outstanding if there were 3 of him working full time.

No, of course not.
How can they have the time to do so?

Lincslass

Many benefits for the poorest in society are means tested so why not MPs pay? After all, they make the regulations so why should they not be subject to similar regulation?

Those desperately poor MP's!!!
Only receiving (not always earning) £82,932 per year in salary and also able to claim large expenses for such things as travel, postage, communications (ie wifi, etc), second home, etc. etc. AND a large amount of severance pay when they either step down or do not get re-elected.
Also to take into account the number of days holidays they get each year 45 days during summer, plus easter and christmas etc.

A good constituency MP will, without doubt, work many hours - but few are good constituency MP's. Far too many regard it as cushy number and stepping stone on to many lucrative opportunities/

Of course they should ntot be permitted any other job or any consutlancies whilst in office. Goes without saying as far as I am concerned.

Would also suggest that the next time they ask for a salary incrrease - instead of getting any cash etc the country should have a minute put aside one evening to clap for them!!!

... no, they should not have other jobs... unless it's fruit or cabbage picking in the windswept wilds of Lincolnshire (or wherever).

Owen Patterson thought it a good idea - an idea roundly condemned by his stunned ministerial colleagues at the time - for pensioners to fill the gaps left by departing East Europeans and pick the crops, but to exclude them from the minimum wage constraint so that farmers didn't lose money due to the fact that they would, naturally, be "slow" (he later denied that he'd said they should work below minimum wage).

Of course it was a ludicrous and silly idea and one that would never have 'flown', but it does indicate the mind-set of some of these ministers who always insist when caught out doing dodgy 'stuff' that they only ever wanted to 'serve their constituents / country / party'.... so - what better way to do it than patriotically donning their Hunter wellies and getting stuck in !

But I do respect those that continue to put in hours in the NHS in frontline services - from whichever party.

Franbern What would you do about those with inherited wealth who invest it in shares or property etc and draw an oncome from that?

Historically, it was because only people with inherited wealth could be MPs that they were paid.

I think there's more than on issue here.

1 Does an MP have time to do other work? Some of them work unpaid for charities - is that OK. Such work does, after all take time away from constituency work.

2 Should they paid at the same level as other people with similar responsibilities, eg CEOs of large companies, some doctors and lawyers, local government heads, etc etc. If they're not, how will the most able be tempted to become MPs?

3 If people object to their extra income, should paid and unpaid income be treated the same? ie they shouldn't have any.

4 What about royalties for previously written books/articles?

5 What kind of regulation needs to be put in place, so that MPs don't get "bribed" by those with cash (or holiday houses) to spare?

I'm sure there are other issues, but I just don't think it's as easy as saying they shouldn't have jobs.

Dickens Well, he's 65 now, so not long before he's eligible to pick cabbages and potatoes! It was even suggested that pensioners should be paid below the minimum wage because they're slow. I believe he's given up his two extra jobs now, although his MP pension will be more than the average wage.

The question was 'should MPs be able to have another job?' not an investigation into other income, from investments, royalties, property etc which I believe has to be declared.

Lobbying was not regarded initially as another job, it was engaging an MP to represent particular interests when the need arose, for which a retainer fee was paid.

Clearly companies paying £100,000 a year expect a great deal more for their money, and this is truly shocking. Since the Parliamentary debacle about the judgement more information has been revealed and Owen Paterson deserves his fate. This committee does need to be reformed and be transparent in its judgement which appears to rest on the decision of one person, and allowing an appeal would clarify to all the reasons for that judgement.
I do not believe MPs should be banned from working in their own career field, as they may need to return to it if they leave Parliament, and be conversant with all developments. But working should be restricted to a set number of hours, in any capacity, to ensure they are available to function efficiently as an MP.

eazybee Ownership of property, shares, etc does have to be declared but not the income derived from such sources.

It would be quite easy for a prospective MP who owns a company to transfer the "work" of running the company to somebody else (so he/she wouldn't have a job) but then to draw dividends from the company and still have a controlling interest in how the company is run. I believe Grant Shapps did this. There would still be potential for lobbying on behalf of the company and government deals which would benefit the company.

PS.

The decision of the committee doesn't rest on the decision of one person. Recommendations are made to the Parliamentary Standards Committee by the Commissioner. Currently, the Committee has 7 MP members: 4 Conservatives, 2 Labour and 1 SNP. The rest are lay people.

Decisions on suspension go to Parliament. Currently, the Conservatives have a massive majority, so there is an appeal system built into the system. Currently, it's weighted towards Conservative members. Paterson (and others) was given many opportunities to state his case. Have you actually read the report? A formal appeal would require fresh evidence, which he doesn't appear to have.

There are some amazing people out there who would be fantastic as a MP but would have to take a substantial pay cut.