Two MPs have admitted using their parliamentary offices as part of a paid meeting.
Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran and senior Conservative backbencher Crispin Blunt both took part in a panel event for Bindmans legal firm regarding the treatment of detainees in Saudi Arabia.
According to her register of interests, Ms Moran has earned £3,000 for her work with Bindmans on top of her £81,932 MP salary.
Mr Blunt has registered a £6,000 payment from Bindmans for chairing a “fact-finding” panel for the firm.
There is a fresh focus on MPs’ outside earnings following the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal.
As part of the scrutiny of MPs’ other employment, Conservative MP Sir Geoffrey Cox is facing claims that he used his parliamentary office to undertake some of his lucrative legal work for a firm representing the government of the British Virgin Islands.
Labour has urged the parliamentary commissioner for standards to investigate Sir Geoffrey’s use of a Commons office, although he denies breaching parliamentary rules.
A code of conduct states that MPs should “ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties”.
Ms Moran has expressed her “deep regret” that she joined the Bindmans event via video-conference from her Commons office.
“With MPs from other parties, I worked on the detention of political prisoners in Saudi Arabia with Bindmans, the legal firm,” she said.
“I deeply regret that I zoomed in for one meeting from my office in parliament when COVID restrictions were in place.
“I take full responsibility for this and it will not happen again.”
Subscribe to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker
Mr Blunt told Sky News it did not occur to him that there would be an issue in using a room in parliament.
“It was a parliamentary panel although one not formed as either an All Party Parliamentary Group or a Select Committee.
“I have chaired three of these detention review panels over recent years and as the panel members were all parliamentarians, each panel cross party, advised by legal counsel, examining matters of serious public and human rights concern, that on any reasonable interpretation the work would meet a definition of being ‘parliamentary’.”
Source: Read Full Article