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”.
Politics
Abolishing Ofwat and compulsory water meters – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry
The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.
The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.
The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.
Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people
The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.
File pic: iStock
He was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.
Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:
• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.
It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.
• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.
The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.
• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.
• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.
• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.
To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.
• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.
• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.
• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.
• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.
Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.
How has the report been received?
In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed is set to describe the water industry as “broken” and welcome the commission’s recommendations to ensure “the failures of the past can never happen again”.
The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.
“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.
“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.
“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”
Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.
“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.
“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.
“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”
US banking and credit union groups asked the OCC to delay deciding on bank license applications from crypto firms, arguing there are “significant policy and process concerns.”
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
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