UK

9° London Hi 11°C / Lo 6°C

Senior Tories to keep their second jobs until New Year

Cameron accused of 'double standards' in deal over MPs' outside interests

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor

Ken Clarke, Andrew Mitchell and Francis Maude

PA/Independent/Reuters

Ken Clarke, Andrew Mitchell and Francis Maude

Members of the Shadow Cabinet will give up their second jobs by the end of the year as they gear up for the general election, David Cameron announced yesterday.

But he faced accusations of "double standards" after admitting that junior frontbenchers would be able to keep their outside posts until the election. Under the ministerial code of conduct, they would have to leave their other jobs if they become ministers.

The Tory leader insisted that holding jobs outside Parliament was not incompatible with being a good MP. "I do not think that a chamber full of professional politicians with no outside experience is a good thing," he said.

But he added: "My Shadow Cabinet has, however, recognised that we are in a particular period at the end of a five-year parliament where it does become necessary to demonstrate 100 per cent focus on Parliament, politics and setting out our credentials as an alternative government. So it's decided that, from the end of December, they won't have any outside interests."

Mr Cameron insisted he was not taking the election result for granted.

The issue of outside jobs has caused tension at the highest level of the Conservative Party. Mr Cameron floated the idea of a ban last year, but had to delay the move until nearer the election after objections led by William Hague, his unofficial deputy. Mr Hague earned about £230,000 last year from after-dinner speeches, advice to private companies and writing books, but has since announced plans to give up his outside work. Some junior frontbenchers are understood to be reluctant to surrender their extra income until the party has won power.

From tomorrow, all MPs will have to publish their outside earnings and how much time they spend on non-parliamentary work under plans unveiled by Gordon Brown to clean up politics after the scandal over MPs' expenses.

All Shadow Cabinet members in the Commons, and the shadow Leader of the Lords, Lord Strathclyde, will surrender their other posts, although the Tory peers Sayeeda Warsi and Pauline Neville-Jones will not have to comply because they do not draw a salary from the public purse.

The Tories released details of the Shadow Cabinet's outside earnings before tomorrow's deadline as Mr Cameron sought to keep one step ahead of Mr Brown on the issue.

Mr Hague, the shadow Foreign Secretary, declares £50,000 a year from JCB, along with £25,000 from AES Engineering and £15,000 for a "paid speech". Francis Maude, who is heading the Tories' preparations for government, earned £36,700 a year from Barclays for six days' work; £21,000 a year as non-executive chairman of the Mission Marketing Group (10 hours a month) and £10,000 a year from American-based consultancy Utek.

Mr Cameron has written to the Speaker, John Bercow, urging the Commons authorities to speed up the release of MPs' expenses for 2008-09, which are due to be published in October.

Shadow cabinet's second jobs: Their hourly rate (The minimum wage is £5.73)

£1,153: Shadow Schools Secretary Michael Gove earned £5,000 a month – or £60,000 a year – for "one hour a week or so" of journalism for The Times.

£764: Francis Maude, shadow Cabinet Office minister, earned £36,700 a year from Barclays Bank for six days a year of work, including overseas meetings.

£187.50: David Willetts was paid £60,000 a year for 40 days' work as an adviser on pensions for Punter Southall in London's Jermyn Street.

£145: Oliver Letwin worked eight hours a week giving corporate finance advice to investment bank NM Rothschild, earning £145 an hour, or just over £60,000 per annum.

£395: Shadow Business Secretary Ken Clarke was paid £38,000 as a non-executive director of Independent News and Media, owner of The Independent. He worked about one day a month.

£346: Andrew Mitchell, shadow International Development Secretary, was paid £36,000 a year for one to two hours a week of consultancy work with Accenture.

£260: Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley was paid £25,000 a year as a non-executive director for Profero, working one day a month.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

(no subject) - [info]pokerknave - Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC) Expand
Tories to keep their other jobs until New Year
[info]frigalo wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 07:31 am (UTC)
These politicians only get the lucrative jobs because of the influence and power that they appear to wield. Cause and effect isn't it? The weasel words that MPs who don't wish to to concentrate on Parliament use which is "professional politician" means exactly what? Doctors have so much to read and absorb about medical matters, why would they want to be sitting around in Westminster wasting their precious knowledge and time? How would that help serve the public? Leave that to the less intelligent and ambitious creatures. Bernard Shaw got it right. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what are politicians actually for?
outside jobs
[info]ivydot wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 08:13 am (UTC)
Cameron's stance on outside jobs seems quite reasonable to me. Let's not make a problem where one doesn't exist.
Re Outside Jobs, not a problem ?
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 10:46 am (UTC)

To Ivydot,

Outside or second jobs for our representatives in Westminster parliament

Is there a conflict of interest ?

These representatives, the MPs form future spending plans, represent the largest employer and effectively determine the largest business to business expenditure in the U.K. economy.

Is it wise, prudent, or advisable that the information they have of future spending plans is given to a select few businesses ?
Is it in the public interest that they form and amend legislation giving consideration to the interests of their other employer ?

For instance should the Conservatives gain control of our government will Mr Oliver Letwin as chancellor of the exchequer be able to fully represent the interests of all of the people in the U.K. whilst being paid to advise and represent the interests of N.M. Rothschild bank of which he is a salaried non executive director ?

All main political parties endorse free markets as the most efficient way of allocating resources, where one firm has prior knowledge or more information regarding their market they are at a competitive advantage and as such the market is less competitive and less efficient in its use and allocation of resources, the stuff you buy and use to live your life.
Would you pay more for stuff to help a well paid parliamentarian get more money by letting them sell the information and power we had given them for the purpose of representing our interests onto private business ?

Ivydot, reality is a fine place, you are welcome to visit,

Let's ban second jobs
[info]had_it wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 12:37 pm (UTC)
Not only will this ensure that people will want to hang on to their jobs indefinitely, since they will be umemployable after a term or two, it will ensure that they know next to nothing about real life in Britain but remain isolated in ther parliamentary/constituency bubbles.

As an added plus, we can get rid of the really competent and successful people who are in high demand elsewhere.
Re Let's ban second jobs
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 01:57 pm (UTC)
mmm, you write,

As an added plus, we can get rid of the really competent and successful people who are in high demand elsewhere.

which highly competent and successful people do you refer to ?

mmm, also you wrote

Not only will this ensure that people will want to hang on to their jobs indefinitely, since they will be umemployable after a term or two, it will ensure that they know next to nothing about real life in Britain but remain isolated in ther parliamentary/constituency bubbles.

Does this mean act in the best interest of the electorate so as to be re elected ?
Does real life in Britain mean knowing how it is to survive on over 100K a year acting mainly to maximise profit for shareholders and owners whilst failing to represent the people who elect you simultaneously flogging the power and knowledge their votes have given you to the highest bidder?

Re: Re Let's ban second jobs
[info]had_it wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 06:23 pm (UTC)
No, it means acting in the best interest of the few selectors who pick the candidates for the safe seats. In the UK, the electorate at large is pretty much irrelvant to keeping an MP's job indefinitely.

If doctors, dentists and jounalists act mainly to maximise profits for their shareholders, then yes, I guess that is what I mean by real life.
Re: Re Let's ban second jobs
[info]pcsobilly wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 10:39 pm (UTC)

Agree absolutely with as stated that the electorate is irrelevant to an MP keeping their post indefinitely in many constituencies and also with regards to Doctors Dentists and Lawyers, obviously the best are preferable.
My comments were specifically relative to our elected representatives, who just like Doctors Dentists and Lawyers are trusted and bound by English law to act in our best interest, it is implicit that they cannot act in the interest of a third party for financial gain without compromising their duty to those that appoint them i.e. hold directorships or sell on the information for money to others as Kuma2000 simply states.

Careless use of our language has resulted in crossed wires, I do hope you have in your own mind answered the questions I asked, my apologies for any misunderstanding in either of our parts.


The Tory leader insisted that holding jobs outside Parliament was not incompatible with being a good
[info]kuma2000 wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 02:06 pm (UTC)
Multimillionaire DC misses the point. MPs on the payroll of big organizations are invariably going to fail to be impartial when issues affect their bosses - this is the same reason why political parties should not be accepting large donations from individuals or businesses of any kind. "Salary for questions" anyone?
Secondly, MPs are paid as FULL TIME employees of the state - it would be expected that the time outside of work would be spent resting so that they could devote their full energies to their job during the next day.

Most popular in UK News



Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date