The three key functions that define the role of Members of Parliament are oversight, legislation and representation. In today’s reality, these tasks demand from our MPs more commitment, depth and expertise than ever before.
There are at least two ways of addressing the problems related to the oversight and legislative functions of MPs.
The first is the allocation of resources by way of support staff for back-benchers. The second is the more complex matter of whether back-benchers should become full-timers in order to carry out their functions more efficiently.
The allocation of resources is straightforward and a matter of priority. Quite simply, parliament should be allocated funds to provide support staff to MPs.
Ultimately, it is in the taxpayer’s interest that MPs should be better equipped to oversee the executive more efficiently and to carry out their legislative function in the drafting of bills.
So, the issue that arises in this context is whether members of the House of Representatives should be full-timers if we are to demand higher standards from our MPs. Having full-time MPs necessarily implies paying MPs more, and that is the elephant in the room.
It is a sense of duty and a desire to serve the community that should attract people to political life, and not the
honorarium. Conversely, taxpayers who rightly expect the highest standards from their elected representatives should be willing to have them remunerated in a manner commensurate with their responsibilities.
Under our current system, members who do not form part of the executive are classified as part-timers and their honorarium is calculated on that basis. Their honorarium is pegged at 50 per cent of salary scale 1 in the public service. By adopting the same institutional metric, a full-time salary would be just below €50,000 per annum. Whether this amount would be sufficient is debatable.
Notionally, the role of a full-time MP should be considered incompatible with a second job in addition to their parliamentary responsibilities, as is the case with ministers or members of the judiciary. This prohibition should reduce the risk of conflicts of interest. Any exceptions would require careful consideration and be done in a transparent manner. The controversy in the United Kingdom provoked by the Owen Paterson and Geoffrey Cox cases and the developments that are unfolding as we speak, should be an eye-opener.
MPs should not hold jobs or contracts with any government entity
The introduction of full-time MPs would indirectly enable us to deal with the long-standing concern of MPs in government employment. MPs who are meant to scrutinise the government should not be employed by the government. Currently, however, all government backbench MPs hold government appointments or consultancies.
In addition, some opposition MPs hold regular public sector jobs that they held prior to becoming MPs. This practice is fundamentally wrong. It dilutes the role of parliament in holding government in check; it places MPs in a conflict of interest; and it goes against the spirit and quite possibly, the letter of the constitution.
In my view, MPs should not hold jobs or contracts with any government entity or ministry. Those currently in public sector employment should not be permitted to opt out of the full-time system if they want to hold on to their seat in parliament. They should be allowed to return to their regular public sector jobs once they leave parliament.
I have expressed my concerns in two reports presented to the Standards Committee, one regarding government back-benchers and the other regarding opposition back-benchers who are employed by the state.
Another consideration is that if full-time MPs were paid a higher honorarium, it is unlikely that this would be attractive enough to lure high earners to enter the political fray, once being elected entails giving up their career.
Yet, such individuals may have a lot to offer and should not be denied the opportunity to serve in parliament. There is significant value in having individuals who are successful outside the political sphere.
So, should all MPs be full-timers? This should be the default position, but the system should permit MPs to opt out. They should be granted the option of continuing to exercise their main job or profession (provided it is not in the public sector), while serving as ‘part-time’ MPs and receiving the current honorarium. Ultimately, we need to attract candidates from a diverse spectrum of society to carry out the responsibility of running the country.
If this proposal were to be pursued, this should be done before the forthcoming election, since this could be relevant to those interested in contesting.
I am comfortable making these proposals because they should contribute to achieving better standards in parliament.
George Marius Hyzler is Commissioner for Standards in Public Life