I don’t think being an MP is an easy job. Sitting on committees, attending debates in the House of Commons, scrutinising legislation, attending functions in your constituency, holding surgeries and assisting constituents with their problems – all are time-consuming and potentially demanding. To be a dedicated MP, even with the help now available in the form of taxpayer-funded assistants, requires a lot of stamina. That is why I have no problem with MPs receiving a decent salary. I don’t want the House of Commons to be full of under-performing MPs who aren’t up to the job.

However, do all MPs work as hard as they should? Are they all as effective as they might be? I make no comment on that and leave you to judge. One tool to assist in making that assessment is a website called “They Work For You”. This provides a substantial amount of information regarding the activities, expenses, and declared interests of all MPs and Lords at Westminster, and also some more limited information relating to members of the Holyrood Parliament in Scotland, the Senedd in Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

My personal view is that now that MPs (at last) receive a reasonable salary (£86,584 p.a. as of April 2023), plus generous expenses, with a decent pension scheme and “redundancy” payments (even if they step down voluntarily), it’s not unreasonable to expect them to devote their whole time and attention to working as an MP. I don’t regard it as appropriate for them to have other jobs. Full disclosure and transparency, via the Register of Members’ Interests, enable us to see what other work they have, which is better than nothing, but in my opinion, they shouldn’t have other work. With the best will in the world, having other jobs at the same time constitutes a distraction from the main job, and always runs the risk (however hard MPs try to counter the tendency) of the MP confusing his other employer’s interests with aspects of his or her own work in Parliament.

Campaigning newspapers such as the Guardian very properly draw attention to donations to the Conservative Party, and the benefits they perceive these produce for the donors. For instance, in this article the Guardian claims:

Housebuilders and property developers have benefited by billions of pounds from delays to low-carbon building regulations in the past eight years of Tory rule, while the sector became one of the biggest sources of donations to the Conservative party.

If there is a link (whether direct or indirect) between those two things, then that is simply wrong. The Guardian (and others) also, with equal propriety, draw attention to MPs’ interests of which they disapprove (such as connections to the fossil fuel industry). Let’s take a look at some of the things that perhaps aren’t talked about so much.

Sir Alok Sharma MP

In February 2022 (quote courtesy of the Guardian) Sir Alok Sharma said:

The changes in the climate we are seeing today are affecting us much sooner and are greater than we originally thought. The impacts on our daily lives will be increasingly severe and stark…Countries need to take action now. If we don’t take action now, the costs will be much higher, and the impacts higher, in future years.

It’s well-known that as President of COP 26, Sir Alok had a jet-setting time of it. Even the Guardian, which generally approves of his stance in opposing any watering-down of net zero etc., took a pop at him, both for his air miles, and for allegedly failing to self-isolate (this was during the dark days of peak covid) on his return from countries listed at the time by the UK government as “red-list” countries.

Most of Sharma’s trips were during the winter and spring months when international travel from the UK was mostly banned.

He visited India, Costa Rica, Qatar and UAE in March, while in April he travelled to South Korea and Japan before going to Bangladesh in June.

Not all of the 30 known trips were return flights to the UK, but travel to and from all the destinations would total 200,000 miles, or the equivalent to eight times around the Earth…

…A No 10 spokesperson said: “As Cop president, Alok Sharma is leading climate negotiations with countries including major emitters to cut emissions and secure ambitious action ahead of the Cop26 summit.

“The majority of this work is done remotely but some travel to key countries for face-to-face talks is essential. He has secured ambitious action as a result of the discussions he has had.”

The spokesperson added: “Ministers conducting essential travel such as this are exempted from quarantine, as set out in the rules.”

Carbon off-setting (presumably also at the UK taxpayers’ expense) was used as justification for his flights. Just how ambitious was the action he secured can be contemplated here. Of course, Sir Alok broke no rules, and everything was above board. It’s just that the rules that applied to his travel were different from the rules that applied to you and me.

He didn’t just indulge in long-haul flights in his capacity as COP26 President, however. As can be ascertained from the entries he has made in the Register of Interests he flew to New Delhi in March 2023, to attend and speak at the Trilateral Commission Plenary Meeting. The Trilateral Commission paid for (I assume) two nights’ accommodation to a value of £381. At least Sir Alok killed two birds with one stone as he stayed on for two days more to attend and speak at the SEB Nordic CEO Conference. The Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB very decently covered the cost of his flights (£7,271), accommodation (£536), meals (£660), and taxi transfers (£163). That sounds to me (though how would I know? I can’t afford this jet-setting lifestyle) like business class (or even first class) flights. Not for the President of COP 26 the self-denying ordinance that is urged on the rest of us. Why travel economy class to India to reduce your carbon footprint by anywhere between 60 and 80% (depending on which website you visit) when a nice Scandinavian Bank is picking up the tab? It’s more than a little ironic that the Scandinavian bank in question apparently has a net zero commitment.

In the following month, Sir Alok was off again, this time to New York, where he attended and spoke at the Global Citizen NOW conference (according to the website the Friday morning session included a conversation with Ali Velshi, Alok Sharma, Elizabeth Wathuti, and Catherine McKenna about getting to net zero). Fortunately, Global Citizen picked up the tab (£9,744 for flights – presumably business or first class again; £881 for taxi transfers; and £237 for meals). I wonder if the conversation about getting to net zero included a chat about air travel?

A couple of months ago he was off to Australia, this time with a staff member, to attend and speak at the Coalition for Conservation International Climate Conference. Happily the costs were again met by someone else – this time the Coalition for Conservation (“Our goal is to develop effective solutions to reduce emissions and protect the environment” – of course it is: that’s why you fly foreign politicians business class or first class half-way round the planet and back to attend a talking shop). I suppose the bill was a snip this time, since it covered the costs of two people – £9,374 for flights; £2,252 for accommodation; and £456 for meals.

That month saw some more globe-trotting – this time back to the Big Apple (“In connection with my role as Rockefeller Foundation Climate and Finance Fellow meetings with representatives of: governments, business and multilateral organisations”). Of course, the Rockefeller Foundation (“We’re a philanthropic foundation that promotes the well-being of humanity by finding and scaling solutions to advance opportunity and reverse the climate crisis” – but they haven’t yet discovered things like Skype, Zoom and Microsoft Teams) was paying for what looks like yet another business class or first class flight – £8,686 for transport; £565 for accommodation; and £152 for meals.

The Rockefeller Foundation also facilitated a trip last month to Nairobi for meetings ahead of the Africa Climate Summit. Naturally, it looks as though the flight was first class or business class, since the declared cost of the flights, visa and taxis was £9,522. Accommodation and meals were a trifling £214, but then the trip was a brief one – 2^nd -3^rd September.

Flying here, there and everywhere – and the associated entries in the Register of Interests – isn’t the end of it. On 18^th May, Sir Alok received £20,000 from J.P. Morgan Securities plc for a speaking engagement. Happily they also provided transport and accommodation, so that the £5,000 per hour payment (the engagement lasted four hours, we are told) wasn’t reduced by costs.

Another speaking engagement in July was even more profitable. Neue Zuercher Zeitung AG coughed up £29,993 in return for four hours of Sir Alok’s time. Thankfully, they too provided the transport.

Chris Skidmore MP

In May 2019, when he was Energy and Clean Growth Minister, Chris Skidmore wrote:

I admire people’s passion in wanting to halt the catastrophic impacts of climate change. All parts of society will feel its lasting effects, and tackling it is rightly a top priority for all generations.

A look at Mr Skidmore’s registered interests shows much less in the way of a jet-setting lifestyle paid for by third parties, with the focus being more on the money he makes from working for others. One of the more interesting declarations he made in the Register is this:

From 3 January 2023 until further notice, Adviser to the Emissions Capture Company (industrial decarbonisation and clean technology), 8-10 Hill Street, London W1J 5NG. I receive £80,000 per annum, paid monthly, for providing advice on the global energy transition and decarbonisation. Hours: 160-192 hrs per annum. (Registered 07 February 2023)

Nice work if you can get it. That’s just £6,584 p.a. less than an MP’s salary. According to the Office for National Statistics average weekly total pay in the UK in July 2023 was £664. If we assume an average 35 hours worked per week, that equates to an average hourly pay rate of £18.97. Mr Skidmore will receive from The Emissions Capture Company hourly pay of £416.67 – £500, depending on whether he provides 160 or 192 hours of “advice on the global energy transition and decarbonisation”. Still, as The Emissions Capture Company’s website says, its “team members have implemented >$70B in major environmental and infrastructure projects globally.” Big Green makes lots of money out of this stuff, so what’s £80,000 for a bit of advice?

Mr Skidmore is also a Non-Executive director of Oxford Educational Group. In return for 6-8 hours of his time every month, they will pay him £40,000 p.a. That’s a similar hourly rate of pay to his earnings from The Emissions Capture Company (£416.67 to £555.55 per hour, depending on whether his involvement is at the lower or upper end of those monthly time commitments). Oxford Educational Group is involved, inter alia, in educating non-UK students in the UK, as is clear from the fact that they offer “pre-sessional” English courses. Or as they put it:

We are a unique accredited education provider dedicated to creating life-enhancing experiences for students worldwide. Our extensive portfolio covers university pathway programmes, a comprehensive range of online academic and vocations courses through the OI Digital Institute and English language schools for adult and junior students in the UK, Canada and USA.

All that seems to involve rather a lot of air miles. Indeed, Mr Skidmore in the Register of Interests, describes his involvement between May 2021 and May 2022 as being the “providing [of] advice on higher education and international student recruitment”. It’s so reassuring, therefore, to find out that they have a robust environmental policy, which includes, rather hilariously in the circumstances, “[r]educing carbon emissions through the efficient use of energy and reducing international air travel”.

That’s not the end of Mr Skidmore’s extra-curricular activities. From August to December 2022 he received more than £3,000 per month from Public Policy Projects Limited , which he describes as an independent public policy institute (they describe themselves as “an organisation operating at the heart of health and life sciences policy delivery” who “facilitate effective collaboration between public and private sector organisations” and “help businesses to grow their profile within the NHS and wider public sector”). Mr Skidmore describes his involvement with this organisation as “research work as senior research adviser”. My own view is that the amount of time he devoted, however good his intentions, to this organisation, might have reduced his effectiveness as an MP – 142 hours over 5 months. In August his hourly pay from them was £80.17; in September it was £106.90; in October it was £134.87; in November it was £137.80; and in December it was £137.15. Compared to some of the pay rates MPs seem to achieve from their non-Parliamentary activities, this is small beer, I suppose, but it’s still pay at a rate between 4 and 6 times the national average, in addition to his MP’s salary and other emoluments. Of interest, perhaps, is that the Chair of Public Policy Projects Limited is Stephen Dorrell, who was Secretary of State for Health from 1995 to 1997, and who is also a Board Member of LaingBuisson, the healthcare market intelligence company.

Mr Skidmore also receives £80,000 p.a. from Global Insight Exchange, which he describes, while registering this interest, as an independent policy institute. The payment is in return for “[c]hairing events and policy research, writing policy reports”. A little digging into the paperwork it has filed at Companies House suggests that this is another organisation linked to to Stephen Dorrell, who in May 2021 was listed as holding directly or indirectly, 75% or more of the shares and voting rights in the company, a state of affairs which ceased to be the case at the end of last year.

In November 2022 Mr Skidmore received £6,023.30 from King’s College London, for chairing a panel reviewing research methods and its report between May 2021 and August 2022. This took 24 hours of his time, so the hourly pay rate was a healthier £250.97.

Coincidentally or not, a couple of months later, King’s College, London hosted at its Strand campus the launch of Mission Zero, which was described as an “independent review” of the Net Zero agenda for the UK Government:

The President & Principal of King’s, Professor Shitij Kapur, opened the launch event with a speech welcoming the report and highlighting some of the sector-leading sustainability work taking place at King’s, which is central to the university’s strategic ambitions. Focused particularly on collaborations that will support the development of new solutions to enable just and fair net zero transitions, a new Net Zero Centre is being developed in the Faculty of Natural, Mathematical and & [sic] Engineering Sciences, and an Institute of Sustainable Business in the King’s Business School.

It all seems very cosy.

The “Mission Zero” report is described on its face as an “Independent Review of Net Zero”. My Concise Oxford English Dictionary describes “independent” as: “1. Free from outside control; not subject to another’s authority…Not supported by public funds. 2. Not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence. Capable of acting or thinking for oneself. 3. Not connected with another…”.

There are undoubtedly some senses in which the report might reasonably be described as independent, but in other respects, I would argue less so. Given the capacity to mislead, I think it would be better if a potentially ambiguous term such as “independent” had been avoided in this context. It’s also worth noting that this “independent” review of net zero wasn’t asked to review the merits of net zero, rather (from the introduction to the report):

…this Independent Review of Net Zero was commissioned in September 2022, to ask how the UK could better meet its net zero commitments, taking account of these global changes. It was commissioned also to ask how the UK might deliver its own net zero targets in a manner that was both more affordable, more efficient, and in a pro-business and pro-enterprise way…

A search of the document for “carbon capture” reveals 36 mentions of the term. A whole section (2.7, commencing on page 122) is headed “Reducing emissions through carbon capture and removal”:

The UK is uniquely placed to be a global leader in Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS), which will play a critical role in the transition to net zero. We must act quickly to foster certainty and attract the investment that we need. Key recommendations: • In 2023, government must act quickly to re-envisage and implement a clear CCUS roadmap, showing the plan beyond 2030. As part of the roadmap, government should take a pragmatic approach to cluster selection. This means allowing the most advanced clusters to progress more quickly. • By 2024, government must develop a strategy for the plan for non-pipeline transport and how dispersed sites and mini clusters can connect to the CCS network and what support should be offered for doing so. • As soon as legislation allows, government must finalise the business models and regulatory frameworks across the value chain, including for industrial CCS, Energy from Waste with CCS and CO2 transport and storage. • In 2023 HMT should set out the funding envelope available to support Track-1 CCUS clusters.

I have no doubt that Mr Skidmore sincerely believes in all of the above, and indeed of the putative benefits of, and need for, a UK net zero policy. I would just feel a bit more comfortable if the person conducting an “independent” review of net zero, who made such recommendations, didn’t receive £80,000 p.a. from The Emissions Capture Company “for providing advice on the global energy transition and decarbonisation”.

Lord Deben (aka John Selwyn Gummer)

Lord Deben, known to those of us of a certain age as the Conservative minister John Selwyn Gummer when Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister, has for ten years been the Chair of the Climate Change Committee, set up under the Climate Change Act to advise the UK Government regarding its obligations under the Act. He is now stepping down, and Professor Piers Forster has been appointed as interim Chair of the Committee until a permanent replacement is appointed. Lord Deben has been a vociferous advocate of net zero policies, and I commented on an example of his interview style here noting his comment that:

Well just a moment, you can’t revise the targets, because the targets are in the law, and they can’t change the law unless the Committee on Climate Change gives them permission, and we’re not going to.

Unfortunately, I have found the website “They Work For You” to be less helpful with regard to those Parliamentarians who are in the Lords, and the House of Lords Register of Interests seemed somewhat opaque by comparison. Nevertheless enough is visible to spot another jet-setting lifestyle, in the cause of addressing climate change.

Visit to China, October 2010, to act as Joint Chairman of Chinese/Globe Climate Change Conference; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to Brazil, February 2011, as Chairman of Globe International, to co-ordinate plans with Brazilian authorities for Rio+20; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to China, February 2011, as follow-up to previous visit in connection with Chinese/Globe Climate Change Conference; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to Brussels, May 2011, as Chairman of Globe International, to launch legislative study; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 14-19 June 2012, as Chairman of Globe International, to host and take part in discussions for Rio+20; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to Beijing, China, 17-20 April 2013, as President of Globe International, to sign the agreement between the Congress and the House of Representatives for the meeting of the Second World Summit of Legislators on climate change; travel and accommodation paid by Globe International

Visit to Mexico City and Pueblo, Mexico, 13 May 2013, as President of Globe International, to have meetings with Ministers and the Leader of the National People’s Congress on climate change

Visit to Toronto, Canada, 23-25 October 2013, to address Electricity Distributors Association Annual Executive Symposium; travel and accommodation paid by Electricity Distributors Association

Visit to Oslo, Norway, 30-31 October 2013, to address Statoil Offshore Wind Summit; travel and accommodation paid by Statoil

Visit to Mexico City, Mexico, 6-8 June 2014, as President of Globe International to attend the Second Globe World Summit of Legislators

Visit to Oslo, Norway, 18 June 2014, to address Transport and Environment – Measures and Policies (TEMPO) Final Conference; travel and expenses paid by TEMPO

Visit to Tokyo, 28 January – 2 February 2017, for meetings on climate change and speech on stranded assets; travel expenses met by Smith Institute, Oxford

Visit to New Zealand, 16-28 February 2017, for a programme of speeches on climate change in Universities of Wellington and Auckland and meetings with Government Ministers and Opposition leaders and addressing Blue Green Conference; travel expenses met by National Party of New Zealand

Lord Deben was for some time Chair of Veolia Limited, and the question of possible conflicts of interest was raised at the time of his appointment as Chair of the Climate Change Committee. An interesting letter about this matter was sent by Sir Robert Smith on behalf of the Energy and Climate Change Committee to Lord Deben on 9^th July 2013, which contains this section:

…when we asked about your interests in the [sic] Veolia Water, you reassured us that its remit was not relevant to your role as Chair of the Committee on Climate Change. After the pre-appointment hearing, it came to our attention that Veolia Water had a role in grid connections and other energy related work. This fact was publicised on its website, and in the forward to its annual report, signed by you, in the same month as the hearing. You have highlighted that the part of Veolia water dealing with grid connections is a subsidiary and that you were not involved in commercial decisions about this area of work. DECC has detailed steps that you have taken to avoid any perceived conflict of interest. Nevertheless, it is disappointing that the full remit of Veolia Water was not disclosed to the Committee at the time of the pre-appointment hearing. We had specifically requested information about your interests before the hearing took place. It is of concern that the steps outlined in the enclosed Secretary of State’s letter were only taken after we had pursued this matter in the months following the publication of our report….

The matter was obviously resolved to the satisfaction of the Committee, as Lord Deben’s appointment was confirmed and so far as I can ascertain no further action was found to be necessary.

Sancroft International is among Lord Deben’s declared interests. As its website says:

The Rt. Hon John Gummer, Lord Deben, is the founder and Chairman of Sancroft International, a consultancy that advises both businesses and investors on all areas of Sustainability and ESG.

This role has not been without (possibly confected) controversy. As Energy Live News put it in 2019:

Lord Deben, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), has been hit by conflict of interest claims regarding the relationship between his government position and family-owned business.

A newspaper investigation alleges Sancroft International has been paid more than £600,000 from green businesses that could potentially profit from the Conservative peer’s advice to Ministers.

Rules dictate all MPs, peers and public officials must officially declare their outside earnings and interests – while Lord Deben’s position as the Chairman of the private firm had been announced, official records show he has not publicly declared any payments received from green firms.

He has denied any conflict of interest and said he had fully complied with disclosure rules, insisting the work his company undertook did not involve climate change issues.

However, the Daily Mail claims the firm has been paid by at least nine businesses and campaign groups involved in projects to cut greenhouse gases, including electric car battery producers, venture capital firms involved with solar projects and Drax, which receives around £700 million a year in government subsidies.

The Lords Commissioner for Standards opened an investigation into this matter, but found no evidence of wrongdoing, saying:

“…how Lord Deben and Sancroft might benefit from Lord Deben speaking in favour of a policy which might at some point benefit a minority aspect of Johnson Mattheys work is not made clear in the complaints or evidence…

…Having investigated the allegations and gathered the relevant facts, I do not consider Lord Deben’s interest in Sancroft or its clients to be relevant interests that required declaration.”

Last year Lord Deben’s interests were updated in the register to make it clear that Sancroft International advises Greencoat Capital Limited on sustainability. As Guido Fawkes noted shortly afterwards:

Greencoat Capital (now Schroders Greencoat) happen to describe themselves as “a specialist manager dedicated to the renewable energy infrastructure sector.”

But the interest has been fully declared, it is therefore transparent and within the rules, and it seems that there is no conflict of interest.

Conclusion

I have highlighted the activities of the three gentlemen above for no reason other than that they are among the most vociferous Parliamentarians advocating for net zero and criticising the Government (despite all being Conservatives) at the slightest sign of a slackening of the pace towards net zero.

All three have registered their interests as required; the system has worked as it is supposed to do, inasmuch as their interests are recorded and fully transparent. No laws have been broken. None of them have done anything wrong. No impropriety has taken place. All three have complied absolutely with the rules as they apply to them.

And yet I’m not happy. I think the rules should be changed. I leave it to you, dear reader, to contemplate whether or not you agree.