![\"\"](\"http:\/\/truepublica.org.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/Screen-Shot-2015-10-15-at-16.10.39.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Back in February this year, a debate about MP\u2019s second jobs dominated Prime Minister\u2019s Questions, after an undercover investigation involving former Foreign Ministers Jack Straw, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and a bogus Chinese company.\u00a0David Cameron said having people with outside interests made for a \u201cstronger Parliament\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n The former Foreign Secretaries were filmed discussing possible payments of up to \u00a35,000 a day for using their contacts and experience to benefit a private company in a sting by Channel 4\u2019s Dispatches<\/a><\/strong><\/span> and the Telegraph in what was termed \u2018<\/strong><\/span>cash for access\u2019<\/strong><\/span>.<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Both men reported themselves to the Parliamentary Standards Committee, with Straw saying he had fallen into a \u201cvery clever trap\u201d and Rifkind acknowledging his comments had been \u201csilly.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n However, it\u00a0is not unusual for MP\u2019s to find themselves in these kinds of circumstances nowadays. More than 100 MPs declare additional employment in the Register of Members\u2019 Interests, without including things such as occasional TV appearances, book royalties and giving speeches. Of the 108 MPs counted using this methodology, 17 are Labour and 80 are Conservatives, according to BBC Analysis and Research<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n Analysis of official data by Statista<\/a><\/strong><\/span> for The Independent<\/a><\/strong><\/span> shows that British MPs earned more than \u00a37 million in total outside their parliamentary wages last year, with Tories accounting for the largest proportion.<\/span><\/p>\n MPs with the most lucrative earnings from jobs outside of politics contribute to fewer parliamentary debates, are absent for more votes and submit fewer written questions than other Members of Parliament, a \u001breport suggests<\/a><\/strong><\/span>.<\/span><\/p>\n The report reveals these high-earning politicians have participated in 22 percent fewer debates than their parliamentary peers since March 2014.<\/span><\/p>\n It indicated that Britain\u2019s top-earning MPs tendered almost 40 percent fewer written questions than their colleagues who do not have second jobs.\u00a0Additionally, the high-earning MPs failed to turn up for 373 votes on average \u2013 a significantly higher absentee rate than their parliamentary colleagues, the report said.<\/span><\/p>\n At this point, one can make assumptions or come to conclusions about how ethical second jobs for MP\u2019s really are. You might come to the conclusion that the salary is not enough to entice the very best quality of individuals for\u00a0such an important role, you might think they earn enough, or even, too much. From here though, there is a more sinister reason for peering into this opaque world of MP\u2019s earnings and this is just one example.<\/span><\/p>\n In November last year, a \u2018dossier of disgrace\u2019 was\u00a0published by Unite<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, Britain\u2019s biggest union. It revealed that 71 MPs from the coalition government of 2010 to 2015 had links to private healthcare interests who voted to sell-off or privatise the National Health Service.<\/span><\/p>\n Len McCluskey, Unite general secretary said: \u201cThe sheer scale of this conflict of interest is staggering, but it is the ongoing sell-off of our NHS that makes this the real scandal for our democracy\u201d. <\/em>He added;\u00a0\u201cIn another attempt to ignore the view of the people of Britain David Cameron is still refusing to use his veto and exempt the NHS from a US EU trade deal called TTIP. What is our NHS doing in a trade deal with America? This again exposes the Government\u2019s real plan for the NHS \u2013 complete and irreversible privatisation.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The report uncovered 64 Tory and 7 Liberal Democrat MPs who had recent or current financial links to companies or individuals trying to profit from the sell-off of the NHS. All of them voted for the Health and Social Care Act, which created a legal mechanism to force commissioners to put NHS services up for sale. To say that this is a conflict of interest would be a very severe understatement of fact.<\/span><\/p>\n The report is damning and delves deeply into the commercial links these named MP\u2019s have. For instance, we focus on just one from the report;\u00a0Andrew Lansley<\/a><\/strong><\/span> \u2013 former health secretary and recently awarded a life peerage.<\/span><\/p>\n John Nash<\/a><\/span>, the former chairman of Care UK, gave \u00a321,000 to fund Andrew Lansley\u2019s personal office in November 2009 when he was shadow health secretary and preparing the White paper that led to the health and Social care bill. Care UK confirmed that 96 per cent of Care UK\u2019s business, which amounted to more than \u00a3400 million last year, came from the NHS. Hedge fund boss John Nash is a regular Conservative donor with close ties to the healthcare industry.\u00a0John Nash and his wife Caroline gave \u00a3203,500 to the party over the past five years. He is also a founder of City firm Sovereign Capital, which runs a string of private healthcare firms. Andrew Lansley received a donation from Julian Schild<\/a><\/strong><\/span> used to support his office in his capacity as Shadow secretary for health. Julian Schild\u2019s family made \u00a3184 million in 2006 by selling hospital bed-makers Huntleigh Technology.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Andrew Lansley\u2019s wife, Sally Low, is founder and managing director of Low Associates. A Daily Telegraph report in February records that the Low Associates<\/a><\/strong><\/span> website lists pharmaceuticals companies SmithKline Beecham, Unilever and P&G among its clients. It also records Ms Low\u2019s assertion that the company \u201cdoes not work with any client who has interests in the health sector\u201d. The website currently contains no reference to the drug firms listed above. In addition,\u00a0<\/em>Christina Lineen, a former Head of Communications at private health company Circle spent two years working for Lansley, when a shadow health secretary.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n John Nash was eventually appointed education minister, then made a life peer, now Baron Nash and has already attracted controversy<\/a><\/strong><\/span> with some influential decisions upon public life.<\/span><\/p>\n Current health secretary Jeremy Hunt<\/a><\/strong><\/span>, also used to an investigation<\/a><\/strong><\/span> or two,\u00a0received two donations to his constituency office from hedge fund boss Andrew Law<\/a><\/strong><\/span>. Law has donated over \u00a3600,000 to the Tories and his firm holds multi-million healthcare investments.<\/span><\/p>\n These examples demonstrate that politicians have little respect for the Ministerial Code<\/a><\/strong><\/span> which, is supposed to be a code of ethics and procedural guidance for ministers, introduced as a result of the first report by the committee on standards in public life in 1995, which is revised every parliament. It is based on the seven principles of public life: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership \u2013 almost universally rejected by today\u2019s politicians.<\/span><\/p>\n Does it get any better in the European Union? No really, this from Corporate Observatory<\/a><\/strong><\/span> \u2013 \u201cConflicts of interest continue to plague the European Parliament one year after elections\u201d, finds new research released today\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n The report from Friends of the Earth Europe, Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl, focuses on just\u00a0nine cases of MEPs who have other jobs while holding public office.\u00a0All nine MEPs hold paid positions in companies or business associations that directly or indirectly lobby EU decision-makers on current legislative files. The cases include parliamentarians from Poland, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, the UK, Denmark and Austria \u2013 some of which had already given rise to concerns in the last parliamentary term.<\/span><\/p>\n Paul de Clerck of Friends of the Earth Europe said<\/a><\/strong><\/span>: \u201cIt is not acceptable that MEPs work for companies that are at the same time lobbying the EU. This undermines public trust in law-making and the integrity of the European Parliament. MEPs should be their electorate\u2019s representative, not industry\u2019s representative.<\/em>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The report authors point out that the existing code of conduct for MEPs, introduced in 2012, is insufficiently enforced and riddled with loopholes so that problematic cases keep arising.<\/span><\/p>\n Olivier Hoedeman from Corporate Europe Observatory said<\/a><\/strong><\/span>: \u201cVoters deserve better than a weak code of conduct that has done very little to end the problem of undue influence and potential conflicts of interest. Parliament\u2019s President Martin Schulz should act on this now and show citizens that he\u2019s serious about tackling this threat to democracy<\/em>.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n