The Government has suggested it would be “impractical” to set a time limit on how much work MPs could undertake outside of Parliament in second jobs.
In a response to a consultation being run by the Commons Committee on Standards, the Government has rejected calls for there to be a cap on the number of hours MPs can spend on other work, despite ministers previously appearing to back the idea.
The committee previously launched a consultation into the wider code of conduct that governs MPs, but the issue of second jobs was brought into sharp focus with the saga over former Tory MP Owen Paterson and Conservative MP for Torridge and West Devon Sir Geoffrey Cox.
Previously, Justice Secretary and deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab said outside earnings could be limited in “one of two ways”.
“You could do it by the amount or you could do it by the number of hours,” he said.
International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan suggested a cap of around 10 to 15 hours per week.
In its response this week, the Government said: “It is the Government’s initial view that the imposition of fixed constraints such as time limits on the amount of time that Members can spend on outside work would be impractical.”
It also said an earnings cap “could serve to prohibit activities which do not bring undue influence to bear on the political system”.
The Prime Minister’s official spokesman said on Thursday: “It is not necessarily the issue of time spent which determines the acceptability of the outside interest, it is what best serves the needs of the constituents, and that can vary.
“For example, placing time limits on MPs’ outside interests may stop MPs with professional service requirements, such as doctors or nurses.
“Setting limits on income from outside interests could prevent MPs from undertaking activities which can enhance their ability to engage with the public.
“So that’s the rationale, which is again set out by the Committee of Standards in Public Life on some of the challenges here.”
He added: “We think it is not necessarily the time spent that determines whether the activity is acceptable to constituents or to the wider public, and that’s why we’ve proposed a ban on services as a parliamentary strategist – for example, adviser or consultant. We think that’s the right approach.”
He added: “We’ve set out our position and it’s now for the committee, and then the House, to come to a view.”
However, Thangam Debbonaire – shadow Commons Leader – said: “This is a Prime Minister who has repeatedly allowed his own MPs to put their own private business interests ahead of their constituents and it must be stopped.
“He can’t just row back on his promises to tighten up the rules on second jobs just because he is in a spot of bother with his backbenchers.
“Labour supports toughening up the standards system, with a ban on directorships and paid consultancy, and the House of Commons must be given the chance to debate fully and approve any measures put forward by the Standards Committee to toughen up the system.”
Former North Shropshire MP Mr Paterson resigned from Parliament in November last year after he was found to have broken lobbying rules by repeatedly lobbying on behalf of two companies for which he was acting as a paid consultant – Randox and Lynn’s Country Foods.
When the Commons was asked to approve his recommended 30 sitting-day suspension, the Government launched a staunch defence and attempted to stave off his punishment through a Tory amendment calling for a review of his case and wider procedures.
Following a furious backlash, there was a U-turn within 24 hours and Mr Paterson resigned. But concerns remained that changes still needed to be made to the system.
The outside work of Sir Geoffrey has also been criticised after it was revealed the senior lawyer earned more than £950,000 in 2021 on top of his MP’s salary of £81,932.
This included him taking part in a Caribbean corruption inquiry while the Commons was sitting.
Sir Geoffrey has defended his outside interests by arguing that “it is up to the electors of Torridge and West Devon whether or not they vote for someone who is a senior and distinguished professional in his field and who still practices that profession”.
He was asked to advise the BVI government and has described his role at the hearings as being “to assist the public inquiry in getting to the truth”.
