Head of ethics watchdog calls for limits on MPs’ second jobs

Published

2 years ago

July 25, 2023

admin

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.

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.”

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”.

Politics

Victims’ families criticise ‘deeply sensitive decision’ to demolish Grenfell Tower

Published

1 hour ago

February 6, 2025

admin

Grenfell Tower to be demolished, as campaigners react to 'divisive and painful debate' over decaying block

Grenfell campaigners have reacted to the “deeply sensitive decision” by the deputy prime minister to demolish the tower block.

Victims’ families and survivors were given the news in a meeting attended by Angela Rayner on Wednesday night.

Grenfell Next of Kin, which represents some of the bereaved families, described it as a “deeply sensitive decision… after a thorough engagement process in person” following an “uncomfortable conversation with uncomfortable truths”.

In a statement on X the group said: “The lack of closure, the continuous discussions and consultations, the retraumatisation of a divisive and painful debate brings nothing to the table except pain and further division.

“We want a discussion about what will go in the Tower’s place so it can be seen and remembered forever. We need to re-imagine a future and rebuild our broken shattered lives and our families.”

The government has previously said there will be no changes to the site before the eighth anniversary of the fire disaster, which claimed 72 lives on 14 June 2017.

It is expected more details will be set out by ministers by the end of the week.

Engineering experts have said that while the tower remains stable, and it is safe for people to live, work and study nearby, its condition will worsen over time and there is no realistic prospect of bringing it back into use.

The latest advice issued to the government in September was that the building, or the part of it that was significantly damaged, should be taken down.

Meanwhile, another campaign group, Grenfell United, claimed Ms Rayner had not given a reason behind her decision during the meeting and refused to say how many of the victims’ families and survivors had been consulted.

In a statement, it said: “But judging from the room alone – the vast majority of whom were bereaved – no one supported her decision. But she claims her decision is based on our views.

“Ignoring the voices of bereaved on the future of our loved ones’ gravesite is disgraceful and unforgivable.”

Grenfell Next of Kin expressed a different opinion, suggesting the decision by Ms Rayner “must have been difficult” and adding that “all the previous Secretaries of State [for Housing, Communities and Local Government] avoided making a decision despite the harm it did to us and the community.”

Local Labour MP Joe Powell also defended Ms Rayner posting on X that following “intensive engagement with our community… the decision to start planning for the Tower to come down has not been taken lightly”.

What is left of the tower has stood in place since the tragedy, with a covering on the building featuring a large green heart accompanied by the words “forever in our hearts”.

Views have varied on what should happen to the site.

Some of the bereaved and survivors feel the tower should remain in place until there are criminal prosecutions over the failings which led to the disaster.

The final report of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, published in September, concluded the fire was the result of “decades of failure” by government and the construction industry to act on the dangers of flammable materials on high-rise buildings.

The west London tower block was covered in combustible products because of the “systematic dishonesty” of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said.

He said the “simple truth” is that all the deaths were avoidable and that those who lived in the tower were “badly failed” by authorities “in most cases through incompetence but, in some cases, through dishonesty and greed”.

However, the Metropolitan Police said last year that decisions on criminal charges for the Grenfell Tower blaze are not expected until the end of 2026.

It would mean a near 10-year wait for justice if anyone is ultimately charged – a period of time described by families as “unbearable”.

The disaster was Britain’s deadliest residential fire since the Second World War and began a national reckoning over the safety and conditions of social housing and tower blocks.

Separately, the Grenfell Tower Memorial Commission has been consulting on plans for a permanent memorial in the area of the tower.

A shortlist of five potential design teams was announced last month, with a winner expected to be selected this summer to enable a planning application to be submitted in late 2026.

A government spokesperson said: “The priority for the deputy prime minister is to meet with and write to the bereaved, survivors and the immediate community to let them know her decision on the future of the Grenfell Tower.

“This is a deeply personal matter for all those affected, and the deputy prime minister is committed to keeping their voice at the heart of this.”

Politics

Conservatives pledge to tighten immigration rules in Reform fightback

Published

1 hour ago

February 6, 2025

admin

Conservatives pledge to tighten immigration rules in Reform fight back

The Conservative Party is pledging to tighten immigration rules after Reform topped a landmark poll for the first time earlier this week.

In her first major policy announcement as Tory Party leader, Kemi Badenoch is pledging to double the amount of time an immigrant needs to have been in the UK before claiming indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years.

In order to claim indefinite leave to remain after 10 years, the individual must also meet new, tightened conditions.

These include not having claimed benefits or used social housing during the entire qualification period, not having a criminal record and being able to demonstrate that their household would be a “net contributor”.

Ms Badenoch accused Labour of being “not serious about tackling immigration” and said there needs to be a “new approach”.

“Our country is not a dormitory, it’s our home,” she said.

“The right to citizenship and permanent residency should only go to those who have demonstrated a real commitment to the UK. That’s why we should double the length of time before people can qualify for indefinite leave to remain from five to 10 years.

“The Conservative Party is under new leadership. We’re going to tell the hard truths about immigration.

“The pace of immigration has been too quick and the numbers coming too high for meaningful integration. We need to slow down the track for citizenship. A UK passport should be a privilege not an automatic right.

“Far from reducing the number of people coming into Britain, the Labour government are presiding over an incoming disaster.

“The Border Security Bill will actually make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the UK, let alone legal migrants. No one can trust Labour on immigration.”

The announcement comes just days after Reform topped a Sky News/YouGov poll for the first time as the party continues to shake up British politics.

The poll, taken on 2 February and 3 February, showed Nigel Farage’s party has edged in front on 25%, with Labour pushed into second on 24% and the Tories on 21%.

It also put the Lib Dems on 14% and Greens on 9%.

All the polling moves that push Reform UK to the top for the first time this week are within the margin of error and the overall picture remains unchanged – with Britain in a new period of three party politics in the polls.

According to the poll, one in five Tory voters at the last election would now vote for Reform.

The Sky News/YouGov poll also found Kemi Badenoch has slipped behind Nigel Farage when voters are asked whether they have a favourable or unfavourable opinion of the leaders.

Last month, Badenoch had a net favourability rating of -25, but that has now dropped to -29 this month.

This puts her below Farage, who had a net favourability rating of -32 last month, which has now risen to -27 this month.

Labour’s border security minister Dame Angela Eagle said: “While [the Conservatives] scramble around for relevance, this Labour government is getting on with clearing up the mess they left behind – raising deportations, returns and removals to the highest rate in six years, increasing the number of illegal working raids and cutting the costs of the asylum system.”