Question to the Leader of the House:

To ask the Leader of the House, with reference to the Government's submission of written evidence to the Committee on Standards review of the Code of Conduct for Members, CCC0032, March 2022, HC 954, what evidential basis is there for the Government's 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.

The Government firmly believes that an MP’s primary job is and must be to serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament. The House has historically benefited from Members having outside experience; this is why we brought forward an amendment during the debate on 17 November 2021 that outside work should be undertaken only within “reasonable limits”.

However, the imposition of fixed constraints such as time limits would not necessarily serve to address recent concerns over paid advocacy and the primary duty of MPs to serve their constituents. It could be possible, for example, for a Member to conduct work within the accepted time limits but that does not necessarily mean such work is “appropriate” even if it did not constitute ‘paid advocacy’.

In respect of a cap on earnings from outside work, to impose such a limit could serve to prohibit activities which do not bring undue influence to bear on the political system. Earnings from activities such as writing books for example, would not preclude Members from meeting their principal duty to their constituents. We believe that it is possible for MPs to strike the right balance between their parliamentary duties and outside work so long as it falls within reasonable limits.

This will ultimately be a matter for the House to consider and the Government awaits the recommendations of the Committee on Standards.