Parliament Ltd: A Journey to the Dark Heart of British Politics
In modern Britain, political journalism is in a sorry state.
It would be easy to criticise the media landscape as being increasingly dominated by vested interests and worthless clickbait, but I instead want to focus on what I believe is an equally serious, yet rarely discussed problem. That is, the scarcity of long-form, investigative journalism.
To do so, I present a review of a relatively obscure book which I believe represents the gold standard investigative journalism: Parliament Ltd: A Journey to the Dark Heart of British Politics by Martin Williams.
This book delves into the financial interests of the United Kingdom’s Members of Parliament (MPs). In doing so, it highlights a plethora of second jobs, questionable expense claims, and dodgy directorships. As the name suggests, it develops the argument that the cases of questionable behaviour identified should not be viewed as isolated incidents but instead as being indicative of a systemic cultural issue which exists within Parliament. Specifically, that large numbers of Parliamentarians see nothing wrong with using their status as an MP to enrich themselves, often to the detriment of the people they are elected to represent. Meanwhile, those MPs who object to such behaviour are heavily incentivised not to challenge it – while the systems which the public might reasonably expect to protect against self-interested behaviour range from woefully inadequate to completely non-existent.
While a book of this nature could easily have slipped into populist rhetoric – denigrating all politicians as being out of touch elites, calling for their salaries to be reduced to the minimum wage, and demanding that their ability to re-claim expenses be rescinded – Williams manages not to fall into this trap. Instead, his introduction cautions against the dangers of such thinking and touches on the surprisingly lengthy portion of history in which MPs themselves were, by and large, opposed to receiving salaries for the performance of their duties. In doing so, he recounts the demands of the Chartist movement. This being a 19th century working class movement which, in 1839, presented a petition to Parliament signed by 1.28 million people. It contained the following six demands1:
· All men to have the vote (universal manhood suffrage)
· Voting should take place by secret ballot
· Parliamentary elections every year, not once every five years
· Constituencies should be of equal size
· Members of Parliament should be paid
· The property qualification for becoming a Member of Parliament should be abolished
To modern eyes, most of these demands appear so uncontroversial that it’s difficult imagine anyone today viewing them with hostility. In particular, I suspect you would be hard pressed to find many people in modern Britain who are of the view the MPs should receive no pay whatsoever. But, in 1839 Parliamentarians took a different stance. They realised that, should the proposed changes be implemented, including the call for MPs to be paid, then this would put their own positions within Parliament at risk by jeopardising their chances of re-election. They resoundingly rejected the Chartist petition. As Williams puts it:
“Back then, politics was a rich man’s game. Without salaries, MPs needed huge financial support to allow them time to swan around the House of Commons. Today, we’re so used to hearing about politicians being greedy, it’s tempting to look back with rose-tinted glasses on a time before they pocketed wages from the taxpayer. But the reality was a crippling injustice. The lack of salary didn’t stop them being stinking rich – it just stopped poor people from joining their elitist clique.”
It would be another 72 years before the Chartist demand that MPs be issued payment would be implemented; when, in 1911, all MPs were issued an annual salary of £400 for the first time. But even then the payment was surprisingly controversial.
Williams recounts the protests of MPs at the time who waxed lyrical about the risk of “lowering the intellectual standard” as well as one who complained he was “afraid of [the House of Commons] being flooded by the failures of society”. Although it’s tempting to dismiss these views, where wealth is seen as a proxy for an individual’s intelligence, as being archaic and long since confined to the rubbish bin of history, throughout Parliament Ltd Williams encounters such views time and time again, alive and well among modern day Parliamentarians. Many current MPs appear to be of the view that it’s imperative for the salary they’re issued to be hiked further each year in order to attract the “right class” of person.
Of those interviewed, the Parliamentarian who appears least coy about expressing such an opinion is former Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen, who happily boasts of being a “self-made millionaire” who “took a 94% pay cut to be an MP” and argues that “surely [the public] want successful people?... Successful people tend to have earned some money.”
I think it’s fairly easy to ridicule such a simplistic and self-aggrandising view as this. Even if you were to accept the premise that being “successful” is synonymous with “having a lot of wealth”, the make-up of Parliament shows that plenty of wealthy people are choosing to stand for election. So, if the present salary is deterring some highly paid or wealthy individuals from entering politics, the effect is likely to be a minor one. Interestingly, when Williams puts this point directly to Bridgen, he seems to dismiss it out of hand:
“One of the funny aspects of this argument is that many of those who espouse it are actually living proof that they’re wrong. ‘You were prepared to do it’, I say to Bridgen, pointing out that he took a massive pay cut to become an MP. Doesn’t that disprove the theory that rich businessmen will be put off unless they can still earn loads?
‘Yeah’, he shrugs, ‘but if you take it to extremes, where it was going will be so far off the mark you’ll be losing a lot of people.’”
This hand-waiving, milquetoast style of dismissal is a common theme in each of Bridgen’s answers to the challenges put to him. For example, Williams outlines how Bridgen charged to expenses 165 nights spent in a luxury hotel (complete with “a swimming pool, sauna, steam room and gym” as well as a “paradise spa”, all at a location overlooking Big Ben). This came at a cost of £25,000 to the UK taxpayer over the course of a single year, yet when questioned about these stays, Bridgen’s retort was… odd:
“’I mean, what do you want?’ he snaps. ‘We could get some cardboard boxes and kip out on the bridge at Waterloo Station. That would be handy, although we might look a bit of a mess when we arrive to work the next morning. Might not be presentable. Where do you want us to go?’”
On the one hand, it would be easy to interpret this response as a kind of startled panic at the thought of public attention being drawn to his dubious behaviour - analogous to how a small child might behave when caught with their hand in a cookie jar. But on the other hand, Bridgen continuously reiterates that his behaviour was not only above board but, in his mind, entirely in keeping with how an MP should be entitled to behave. The notion that he should consider a cheaper, budget hotel, or even just rent a flat like most other MPs doesn’t get a look-in.
Perhaps a contingent of the general public will even share his views. After all, Bridgen has been re-elected since Williams published his interview and remains an MP to this day (although, he no longer sits as a Conservative – he was ejected from the party in January 2023, after repeating a claim which likened COVID-19 vaccination efforts to the Holocaust).
Having read the interview, I came away with the view that Bridgen has developed a kind of self-delusion to justify his behaviour to himself. I’m reminded of the immortal words of author and political candidate, Upton Sinclair who said: “it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
Throughout Parliament Ltd Williams highlights instances of a similar attitude being held by MPs from across the political spectrum. For example, in 2009, the right-leaning newspaper The Daily Telegraph began publishing leaked details about expense claims submitted by MPs. This exposed widespread abuse of the expenses system, including outright criminality. Particularly unedifying examples included a £1,645 claim, submitted by Conservative MP Peter Viggers for an “ornamental duck island”2 and a £600 claim for “hanging baskets and potted plants” by Labour MP Margaret Beckett3.
Although this scandal occurred several years before Williams wrote Parliament Ltd. he provides a reminder of the attitudes expressed by many MPs at the time. He recounts how Conservative MP, Eric Pickles attempted to justify his own expense claims on an episode of political discussion show, Question Time:
“In front of an audience in Newcastle, Eric Pickles tried defending the fact that he had claimed expenses for a second home in London, despite his main residence being just twenty-nine miles away in Essex. His excuse? ‘The House of Commons works on clockwork’, he said, explaining that commuting to work might make him late. ‘You have to be there precisely,’ he said.
‘Like a job, in other words?’ asked [the host] David Dimbleby.
‘Yes,’ Pickles replied. ‘Exactly like a job’.”
It’s worth reiterating here that Pickles would have been fully aware that the matter of expense abuses was front page news on almost every newspaper in the land prior to his appearance on Question Time. While he seemed surprised at the strength of feeling expressed by the audience (sarcastically quipping that he’d “make [his own] brief contribution to hang an MP week”)4 it still seems surprising that any politician could be so monumentally out of touch with public opinion as to express himself in such a way.
But, as Williams explores the state of Parliament in the post-expense scandal world, it becomes apparent that we would perhaps be wrong to express surprise at Pickles’ comments. Ultimately, expressing himself in this manner seems to have had little impact on his political career. Today, Pickles’ has been provided with a seat in the House of Lords, which effectively guarantees him a taxpayer funded job for the rest of his life (his biography on the Parliamentary website also notes that he was “the Prime Minister’s Anti-Corruption Champion from 2015 to Spring 2017”5). Likewise, Margaret Beckett, who felt it appropriate that the taxpayer should shell out money for sprucing up her garden, remains an MP to this day. As Williams puts it “rules only work if they are enforced”.
Here, it becomes necessary to explain exactly how the expenses system within the UK Parliament works. On this point, Williams really comes into his own, and the importance of the long-form exploration of this subject becomes particularly apparent. As, rather than acting simply as a collection of one-off interviews and essays, his book develops the narrative of how the expenses system has developed and changed over time.
While a member of the public reading into the subject for the first time might reasonably assume MPs are paid a salary and then offered the ability to claim expenses in the same manner to those in more conventional employment (i.e. with expenses reclaimable for travel, as well for accommodation and food costs when staying away from home) in reality, there’s a lot more ambiguity at play. For one thing, when the “salary” was first introduced, it wasn’t considered to be a “salary” at all. In fact, the then Prime Minister, David Lloyd George quipped that “it is not even a salary. It is just an allowance”. His reasoning being being that it would be undesirable for Parliamentary duties to take up most of any individual’s time. Instead, the prevalent view was MPs should engage with outside interests to remain well-rounded individuals, in touch with the outside world.
To this end, large portions of the Parliamentary week were often kept free of debates or votes, to allow MPs to attend to their other obligations outside Parliament. Today, a similar structure remains, but expectations have shifted. Instead, this free time is generally considered to exist in order to free MPs up to engage with their constituents, read the contents of forthcoming bills, and scrutinise the government of the day by taking part in Parliamentary Committees. Nonetheless, this expectation has never been codified anywhere and MPs are essentially free to structure their time however they see fit. On this point Williams refers back to the Parliamentary Standards handbook, which stated that: “[MPs] have no formal contact of employment and no formal job description”.
The expense system which MPs operate under is perhaps even more unusual.
Rather than acting as employees, responsible for reclaiming expenses they incur themselves, MPs also act as employers in their own right; in that they’re responsible for maintaining an office within their constituency - including renting premises, paying staff to work on their behalf, as well as purchasing office equipment. The costs associated with these practices are also reclaimable through the expense system.
This gives rise to an odd occurrence which can see MPs submitting perfectly legitimate, reasonable expense claims, yet being lambasted in the press for doing so. For example, Williams recounts an instance whereby former Prime Minister, David Cameron (whose wealth could be measured in the tens of millions before he ever set foot in Parliament) submitted an expense claim for packets of staples and bulldog clips. While elements of the press used this information to try and portray Cameron as a kind of penny-pinching miser, in reality the expense claim associated with this routine stationary order is unlikely to have been prepared by Cameron himself (even though he would ultimately have been responsible for authorising it).
While this unusual system can lead to misunderstandings such as that just outlined, it also creates a surprisingly large amount of ambiguity around what is or should be claimable. For instance, it’s hard to imagine that when any member of the public attends a war memorial to watch their local MP lay a wreath that they expect it to have been purchased by anyone other than that MP themself. Yet, Labour MP Sarah Champion did just that, when she attempted to claim £17 for a Remembrance Day wreath.
When this matter was exposed in the press, it was reported that Champion quickly apologized and promised to pay back the cost of the wreath. As Williams puts it:
“When they’re named and shamed in the press, these politicians cower, grovel and apologise. They blame it on admin errors and quickly pay the money back”.
Yet, when Williams interviewed other MPs about this matter and gave them the option to pass comment anonymously, he reported that many of them sang a very different tune. For example, he reports one former Minister commenting that:
“When the council leader puts it down, he doesn’t pay. When the commanding officer of the air force cadets puts it down, he doesn’t pay for it. When the British Legion guy puts it down, he doesn’t pay for it personally. But it is expected that MPs will… A lot of MPs are very, very short of money, but there’s not point moaning about it”.
I can’t help but wonder whether the unusual expense system which MPs utilise (which merges their personal expenses with that of a wider group of office staff - of which they are the figurehead) helps them to justify some of these questionable expenses to themselves. After all, it might feel grubby to charge a gift you are personally giving to expenses; but, if you can engage in a kind of metal gymnastics and convince yourself that you are giving that same gift on behalf of everyone in “your team” (i.e. your office staff) then perhaps it seems more reasonable.
There are clearly still some problems with the Parliamentary expense system. For one thing, MPs are free to hire their own friends and family as office staff, which sees several employ their own spouse as an office manager (effectively syphoning off taxpayer money into the pockets of their nearest and dearest). Yet, it does seem to be much more robust than it once was. While the trajectory where expenses are concerned has been towards greater transparency and accountability, vigilance is needed as many MPs openly lament the changes. As Labour MP Ronnie Campbell puts it “I had a cleaner, now I have to clean the flat me-bloody-self!”.
Nonetheless, a much more concerning matter is the nature of MPs’ outside interests. For one thing, the scope is pretty astonishing (Williams identified 2465 British companies with politicians sitting on their board of directors). But equally worrying is the lack of transparency. For example, where share ownership is concerned, Williams notes that Parliamentary rules state: “Members should not specify the value of the shares or the percentage in a company that are owned” and MPs are only asked to declare shares they own in excess of £70,000. Which of course leaves the public in a state of ignorance in relation to a great many potential conflicts of interest.
However, it’s also unclear as to how making a declaration alone eliminates a conflict. For example, if a politician issues remarks on any controversial business practice or sector, it’s easy to imagine that a budding journalists will be immediately be drawn to the register of interests when compiling a report on the subject. Say for example that you were listening to former Conservative leadership contender Kenneth Clarke speak on the subject of tobacco duty. Clarke was once the non-executive Deputy Chair of British American Tobacco while sitting as an MP. It’s easy to see why this outside interest should be given a fair degree of prominence when reporting any views he expressed in relation to the industry.
But what about other politicians making seemingly throwaway comments likely to impact far less controversial industries? Williams gives the following example of a comment made by the former Leader of the Scottish National Party within the House of Commons, Iain Blackford:
“A broadband universal service obligation, working alongside significant Scottish Government investment, would help to address the digital divide and ensure that everyone in Scotland could access broadband services… The government have to consider how we create competitive opportunities in rural areas”.
It’s hard to imagine a statement as bland as this one ever receiving any media coverage at all. But if you were aware, as Williams points out, that Blackford was “paid £1,000 a month as non-executive Chairman of Commsworld plc, a company that describes itself as ‘Scotland’s leading telecommunications network provider’ [which] offers ‘connectivity solutions’” it’s easy to see how you this looks like as an instance of an MP lobbying on behalf of an outside interest.
In this case, Blackford had declared his connection to Commsworld plc prior to making his statement and so there’s no suggestion that he broke any Parliamentary rules by doing so. But… isn’t that a problem in and of itself? Shouldn’t conflicts such like this be banned, rather than simply logged on an official register?
What about if rules are broken though? What happens then? For instance, what would happen if an MP didn’t declare an outside interest?
Williams recounts his interview with Labour MP Gisela Stuart thusly:
“It was as if I’d just taken a crap on the table in front of her. A mixture of horror, disgust and anger – but, above all, just complete confusion. Yet all I’d done was ask a simple question:
‘What is Vestra Wealth?’
A stunned look sprang on her face. ‘Is that on the Register?’
‘No’ I said. ‘It’s not’”
As Williams goes on to explain, Vestra Wealth was a wealth management partnership which described itself as “offer[ing] a fresh approach to wealth management… offshore and international planning for non-domiciled and nonresident clients”. At the time, Stuart’s party leadership had pledged to abolish so-called “non-domiciled” tax status, yet she here she was with an undeclared interest in a partnership whose investment committee chair had previously stated: “Non-doms are entrepreneurs… allowing them to bring in money to fund business and create jobs is a very pro-business policy. This has undoubtedly persuaded many of the value of the UK as a base”. Clearly her connection to this business would be of interest to the public. Surely the omission of this information from the register was a textbook case of the rules being broken?
Surprisingly, the Parliamentary regulator on standards disagreed. They did so on the basis that Stewart did declare this interest after Williams interviewed her and, although her interest in the partnership was worth an estimated £93,000 when she did so, this wasn’t judged to be an issue as the value had apparently only risen about the £70,000 threshold for declaration a few months before.
This brings me to what I liked most about this book. That is, rather than merely revealing the outcomes of his investigations, Williams elaborates on the process he went through to uncover information. It would be difficult to adequately give a full overview of this here (e.g. simply checking the accuracy of MPs declarations of outside interests required a trip to an industrial estate in Lancing as well as wrangling with an obscure law which makes publishing some of this publicly available information a criminal offence). But, if I stick to a single choice example, I think I can show why I feel it’s so important.
Although you might assume the register of interests for MPs is readily accessible to the public, easily searchable, and subject to stringent checks, as Williams explains, for “Over 1,400 politicians across commons and lords. The main copy of the House of Commons register is a single 500-page PDF, published once a month” and, as he reveals, it’s never audited.
In Williams’ words:
“in Parliament, ‘transparency’ and ‘accountability’ means compiling a load of indecipherable, unaudited information, dumping it on the Internet and relying on other people to check its accuracy… even though it’s literally impossible for us to make the necessary checks.”
To verify the accuracy of the Register of Interests, Williams was forced to wade through screeds of ill formatted data and reconcile the information contained against sources which he collated himself. While we might expect professional journalists to routinely engage in this practice, it’s far from clear that any are doing so. Yet, unless such checks are performed, it’s difficult to have any faith at all in the accuracy of Parliamentarians’ declarations.
I must now confess that I first stumbled across Parliament Ltd. entirely by accident. In fact, I purchased the book alongside several others as part of a deal which offered 3 books for £20. It then sat unread on a shelf within my home for the best part of a year before I finally got around to reading it. When I finally did, I was left wondering why this book and its author aren’t more well known.
This led me to wonder about what types of journalists are likely to engage in the same style of investigative reporting as Williams. There are several types who we can likely discount off-the-bat: Firstly, there are the partisan hacks who are often little more than a mouthpiece for their political party of choice (and so we shouldn’t be surprised that they’re rarely vociferous in criticising those on “their side” of the political spectrum). Then, there are the shock jocks, general outrage-merchants and those who engage in what we might term “clickbait-journalist”. That is, the kind of journalism which aims to churn out large volumes of content as rapidly as possible in order to attract a consistent stream of clicks, views, or newspaper/magazine sales. In this case, it seems that their business model is at odds with the characteristics of long-form investigative reporting – which requires long periods of research and a great deal of leg work to be completed before journalistic copy is produced.
What then about other journalists? If we take as an example the BBC. As a state funded broadcaster, which is not dependent on generating clicks or boosting its viewing figures to justify its own existence, it’s easy to imagine that its journalist should spend more time than most taking part in in-depth investigations and regularly holding MPs’ feet to the fire, in relation to any identified misconduct.
In reality, I can’t help but notice that many senior journalists at the BBC seem to have entered into a kind of symbiotic relationship with MPs due to their reliance on using MPs themselves as anonymous sources. There now seems to be a fairly large clique of journalists whose primary occupation involves loitering in the lobbies, meeting rooms, and bars inside Parliament, collating off-the-record comments by MPs who are willing to speak with them, and then relaying these (anonymised) to the public.
I don’t want to be too harsh on these journalists as I feel that this practice does hold some value. After all, the ability to comment anonymously allows MPs to issue statements at odds with their Party’s official line, sound out the public’s attitude towards certain political stances, and reveal details which some of their Parliamentary colleagues would prefer remain under wraps, all without the risk of retaliation against themselves.
However, when I read into the tone of discomfort and even anger expressed by many of those interviewed by Williams whenever he raised their personal financial affairs, I can’t help but wonder whether BBC journalists would be prepared to “go there” when interviewing MPs who they rely upon to as anonymous sources who regularly provide interesting copy. Maybe they would. Maybe they wouldn’t. But, we have no real way of knowing.
I’m not sure how I would categorise Williams as I still know very little about him (he has next to no web presence). But I do feel it’s reasonable to place investigative journalists in a separate category from the others. I lament that there seems to be fewer of them around each year and worry that their style of journalism is particularly exposed to the changing consumption habits of those who read, watch, and listen to news. After all, this form of journalism is likely the most costly, so it would seem only natural that it would be the first to fall by the wayside as public attitudes shift towards an expectation that news and other journalistic content should be available at all times free of charge.
At this point I had planned to conclude this summary by encouraging you to consider paying for high quality, investigative journalism. I also thought to touch briefly on some of the other issues covered by Parliament Ltd (my remaining notes include the phrases “sweatshops”, “arms manufacture”, and “mining company related gang-rapes”). But, instead I will finish with the following.
While writing this review a couple of fortuitous things happened. Firstly, rumours began circulating that disgraced former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson was planning to provide his father with an honorary knighthood6.
As well as the expected allegations of nepotism this created, anger was also inflamed further by revelations that Johnson’s father, Stanley, was had been accused by his wife of punching her in the face7 and of course questions were also raised about why a Prime Minster who was forced out of office should be allowed to issue honours at all (Johnson was embroiled in a number of scandals during his tenure, but was ultimately ousted when it was revealed he had promoted one of his PMs, Christopher Pincher despite knowing he was under investigation for allegations of sexual misconduct – allegedly joking that he was “Pincher by name, pincher by nature)8.
Separately to this, a campaign group called “Led By Donkeys” posed as a fictitious South Korean company and filmed former Health Secretary, Matt Hancock, and former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, agreeing to work on their behalf in exchange for fees of £10,000 per day.9
To be clear, there’s no suggestion that any rule breaking has taken place here. As it stands, both Hancock and Kwarteng are free to accept paid outside employment of their choosing, providing it’s declared on the register of interests. Likewise, there’s nothing to prevent Boris Johnson from attempting to divvy out honours to his family members – indeed, he previously provided his own brother, Jo Johnson, with a seat in the House of Lords.
I mention all of this because I think it acts as a reminder of some of the attitudes exposed in Parliament Ltd. For many MPs, all that matters is that they’re complying with the letter of the laws they work under. Whether they’re complying with the spirit of them, or whether the laws themselves are sufficient and appropriate seems to be of little concern to them.
It might be tempting to note that each of the MPs I’ve just listed is a member of the governing Conservative party, which has been in power for over a decade, and conclude that a change of government might reduce some of these attitudes. This is of course a possibility. As it stands the Labour party is currently polling as likely to win the next election, with its leader, Kier Starmer, the clear favourite to become form the next government. While Starmer has called for a ban on second jobs and talked tough on PMs having outside interests generally10, it’s worth noting that he has engaged in legal consultancy work himself while sitting as an MP and he is yet to ban Labour MPs from having second jobs despite having the power to do so in his role as party leader. So, I remain unoptimistic.
Although this might seem like a rather depressing note to end on, I think this is the best way of emphasizing my main takeaway from Parliament Ltd. That is, politicians can broadly be expected to act in accordance with their own selfish self-interests, at least when it comes to matters relating to their own finances. The main tools which we as members of the public have to hold them to account are: choosing to fund high quality journalism, consuming and disseminating stories uncovered by said journalism, and, of course, by investigating the character of candidates before casting a vote in the ballot box.
References
-
[https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/](https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/chartists/overview/chartistmovement/) -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-52219896](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-52219896) -
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5293973/Margaret-Becketts-600-claim-for-hanging-baskets-and-pot-plants-MPs-expenses.html](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5293973/Margaret-Becketts-600-claim-for-hanging-baskets-and-pot-plants-MPs-expenses.html) -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrFV4c\_sVY&](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MrFV4c_sVY&) -
[https://www.gov.uk/government/people/eric-pickles](https://www.gov.uk/government/people/eric-pickles) -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64911178](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64911178) -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62039540](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62039540) -
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65077273](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65077273)