Wednesday was one of the 20 days in the year when the opposition party gets to set the agenda and debates for Parliament as a whole. Any attempt to change the law will not be easy as it depends on winning over some proportion of the Government, and in our adversarial Parliament the Government usually oppose these bills on a matter of principle. In the event The Labour Party chose to debate a motion which would restrict the opportunities for MPs to hold certain types of 2nd jobs. Depending on ones point of view this is either complementary to the Governments own attempts to reform lobbying as published the day before or else it was a way of retaliating to the elements of the lobbying bill that seek to tie the hands of the Trade Unions.

It is clear from the debate if you have the time to read through the transcript that the motion was poorly worded, Nick Raynsford, one time Labour Minister spoke about its failings extensively, others agreed, but pointed out that there was plenty of scope for amending and improving the text. Certainly the Governments bill on lobbying is full of flaws, if you are interested in reading about some of these check out this blog. However the Labour motion is not without value as it manages to raise the subject of these second jobs which I have blogged about previously. The real strength of this debate as a forerunner to the lobbying bill is that it brings into sharp focus the need for issues such as this to be debated by people who are not affected by the outcome of the discussion. Just as our MPs and Lords no longer set their own pay scales, so they need to understand that they cannot  set their conditions of employment. That doesn’t mean I am a supporter of IPSA in its current format, as I have written previously, but rather that we need an effective and truly representative body to act on our behalf in this matter.

As two Labour MPs pointed out Police Officers and Local Government Officers cannot take on second jobs without formal approval and yet MPs appear to have almost no limits to their own extra curricular activity, providing they register them. The attitude of some of these men and women also indicates a complete lack of regard for the views of the people who pay their wages. No matter how poorly the motion may have been  worded, the Opposition are at least focusing on a matter that is of concern to many electors.

As part of the debate Robert Buckland, Conservative MP for South Swindon who also works as a part time Judge was asked if he should waive his Parliamentary wages whilst he was actually working in Court “I do not do that, but I do keep fully in touch with what is going on, as with my work as a Member of Parliament. The fact that I, on 15 days of the year, choose to serve the public interest—that is what sitting as a part-time judge involves—keeps me in touch with the work that I used to do as a lawyer. It makes me keep up to date with sentencing law and the law of criminal justice, and it enhances the contributions I can make in this House. What is wrong with that?” It should be highlighted Judge Buckland only sits when Parliament is at recess, but nevertheless these days in Court are days when he is not available to his constituents!

Not all of the MPs are as out of touch with their constituents or their own career choices as Robert Buckland, Pat Glass, Labour MP for North West Durham said “Like many other Members who entered this House in 2010, I left a well-paid job—it was much better paid than that of an MP—but I understood exactly what I was taking on. I knew what the job paid and the kind of hours I would need to work. I have not regretted that decision. I did not enter this House with the expectation of using it as a stepping stone to lucrative company director posts or as a route into other, better paid jobs or consultancies.”

The debate ended with Tom Brake, Lib Dem MP for Carshalton and Wallington speaking on behalf of the Government “The Government, on the other hand, are committed to promoting transparency, both in Members’ relations with the public and in the political system as a whole. We want to shine a light on this place and let the people make their choice. I urge the House to reject the motion.” I personally don’t think that transparency is well served by MPs deciding for themselves on what basis they might have second jobs. What about you?