Head of ethics watchdog calls for limits on MPs’ second jobs
The head of the most senior ethics watchdog has called for some form of limit on MPs’ second jobs, telling Sky News it is “hard to argue” some politicians are putting parliament first.
MPs should be given an “indicative” ceiling on how much time to spend on their extra-parliamentary roles, according to an interview with the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Lord Evans.
The crossbench peer, who spent his career in the secret service and was head of MI5 for six years, today praises the “valuable” work by Sky News in the Westminster Accounts project which has spent the last seven months examining the role of money in politics. He today uses a major interview to push for change.
In a rare wide-ranging interview, Lord Evans also:
• Criticised the attempt by Boris Johnson’s government to change the standards system in response to the Owen Paterson affair as “not the right way to behave. That can’t be the right way to behave in public office.”
• Said there were “very disgraceful” episodes over the last three years involving breaches of parliamentary standards.
• Pressed on Mr Johnson’s leadership, he said: “The tone from the top, the leadership is very important…. The way that leaders behave will set a tone that others will follow.”
• Said it was still too hard to identify the ultimate donor of money in British politics, the system isn’t transparent enough and “there are still risks of foreign money coming into the political process here”.
Lord Evans says that Sky’s Westminster Accounts project highlights how there remains a problem with some MPs and the amount of time they spend on second jobs.
“There have been some quite well-documented cases where it’s hard to argue that this person is putting their main focus on their parliamentary duties, given the amount of time that they appear to be giving to other activities.”
Lord Evans, who steps down after his five-year term expires in the autumn, says it is for parliament, not his committee to set precise rules, and concedes this exercise is “difficult”. Nevertheless, in his interview he says MPs should try again to achieve this.
“We’ve suggested that one might want to give indicative figures in terms of hours. So far, the parliamentary authorities have not decided to go down that route, but we think there are attractions in that.”
The former prime minister Boris Johnson proposed a fixed limit to second jobs in the wake of the lobbying scandal involving former Tory MP Owen Paterson, but later abandoned the plans in the face of a Tory backbench revolt.
Lord Evans declined to criticise Boris Johnson by name but made clear his unhappiness with how the ex-PM behaved at key moments
In this parliament, from December 2019 until he stood down in June, Mr Johnson earned £5.1m, more than any other MP.
Theresa May, another former PM, has earned £2.7m, the Westminster Accounts tool produced by Sky News together with media company Tortoise shows.
Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, has proposed a ban on second jobs, but shadow foreign secretary David Lammy has continued with well-paid media work and speeches worth over £272,000.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life does not investigate individuals and instead makes suggestions on how to change the rules directly to the prime minister, so Lord Evans would not comment on individual cases.
Asked he if was disappointed the most high-profile figures – ex-PMs – also earn the most outside the Commons, he replied: “I think the critical thing is it needs to be clear to the public and particularly to people’s constituents that the priority afforded by MPs, whether they’re well known or whether they’re less known, is on the interests of their constituents and of serving in parliament and not focusing on their own economic or other career interests.”
Read More:
Westminster Accounts: Search for your MP
Transparency in politics often feels like it falls short – we want to shine a light on that
Lord Evans also issued a stark warning on the failure of the government and parliament to pass stricter rules on donations.
In stark criticism of successive Tory administrations – including that of Rishi Sunak – Lord Evans said: “One of the principles of public life is openness, and I don’t think there is enough information about where money is coming from.
“I don’t think it’s easy to identify who is giving money. I think there are still risks of foreign money coming into the political process here.”
Earlier this year, Sky’s Westminster Accounts series highlighted how donations direct to MPs – which do not go through the Electoral Commission – go through a less rigorous checking process than other donations.
Click to subscribe to the Sky News Daily wherever you get your podcasts
Lord Evans continued: “We made a number of recommendations on this. The government has not accepted those. We think that’s a mistake.
“We have been assured and this has been said repeatedly by the government, that the rules are strict and rigorous. That’s not our view. The rules are not strict. They are not rigorous and they are insufficiently transparent.”
He suggested that companies can be used to disguise the source of foreign donations, which are illegal under the UK political system.
“The .. first problem is lack of real openness. And just to say ‘I have been given money by company X’, when you can’t work out where company X got that money from (and) who actually controls that company, is really not a satisfactory way of discharging responsibility for openness.
“And it’s also very important that we can protect the political system from an improper influence, whether that’s from business interests, whether that’s from extreme political interests, or whether that’s from foreign powers. And transparency is a really important part of that. And the transparency rules at the moment, in our view, the view of my committee are not strong enough.”
Lord Evans declined to criticise Mr Johnson by name but made clear his unhappiness with the way the former prime minister behaved at key moments.
Lord Evans singled out for criticism the Owen Paterson affair, highlighting “someone who was clearly breaching the parliamentary rules (who) went through due process and there was an attempt to change the rules in the middle of the process. That’s not the right way to behave. That can’t be the right way to behave in public office”.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD
Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.
As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.
Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.
This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.
It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.
A comprehensive approach
Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.
Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.
A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.
A full-system solution
Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end?
Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%
Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.
Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses
All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.
For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.
When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.
A proactive approach
We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.
If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.
Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”
Responsible innovation
Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.
Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.
Truth in Technology Act
The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929.
At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.
This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.
Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.
Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.
It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
Asset manager REX-Osprey is seeking to launch an exchange-traded fund (ETF) designed to hold the Movement Network’s native token, MOVE, according to a March 10 announcement.
The filing comes as Movement, a layer-2 (L2) blockchain network, launches its public mainnet beta, Movement said.
It is the latest example of a fund sponsor filing to list an ETF comprising an alternative cryptocurrency, or “altcoin.”
“Traditional investors have expressed keen interest in gaining regulated exposure to emerging blockchain technologies without directly managing tokens,” Cooper Scanlon, Movement Labs’ co-founder, said in a statement.
Movement is an Ethereum L2 blockchain designed using Move, a Rust-based programming language originally developed by Meta.
Its public mainnet has approximately $250 million in total value locked (TVL), according to Movement.
The MOVE token has a fully diluted value of around $5 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission authorized ETFs holding Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) to list in the US in 2024 but has not yet approved any altcoin ETFs.
“Breaking the pattern of ETFs limited to long-established cryptocurrencies opens doors for institutional capital to support next-generation blockchain innovation,” Rushi Manche, Movement Labs’ co-founder, said in a statement.
REX-Osprey has filed for a MOVE ETF. Source: SEC
Related: Bitwise files to list a spot Aptos ETF — the 36th largest cryptocurrency
Altcoin ETFs abound
Asset managers are seeking the SEC’s approval to list ETFs for holding upward of half a dozen different altcoins.
On March 5, asset manager Bitwise filed to list a spot Aptos ETF in the US — a token created by a team led by two former Facebook (now Meta) employees in 2022.
On Feb. 25, US securities exchange Nasdaq requested to list a Grayscale ETF holding the Polkadot network’s native token, DOT (DOT).
Other altcoin ETFs awaiting approval include those holding Litecoin (LTC), Solana (SOL) and Official Trump (TRUMP), among others.
US President Donald Trump, who started his second term in January, said he wants America to become the “world’s crypto capital” and has appointed pro-crypto leaders to key regulatory agencies, including the SEC.
Bloomberg Intelligence has set the odds of the SEC approving Solana and Litecoin ETFs at 70% and 90%, respectively.
Magazine: Meet lawyer Max Burwick — ‘The ambulance chaser of crypto’
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports3 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway