Read some of the submissions to the committee considering new rules on second jobs and Commons behaviour

Ministers have made a U-turn on a pledge to limit the time or earnings on MPs’ second jobs, one of several rule changes promised by Boris Johnson last year in order to stop abuse of the system.

The proposed changes were announced after there was a public outcry when the former cabinet minister Owen Paterson was censured for breaching lobbying rules and another, Geoffrey Cox, was found to have been voting by proxy when doing work for law clients in the Caribbean.

Complexity brings errors, which then bring the house into disrepute – contrary to the code’s purpose. Limiting time or limiting income does not improve the honesty and integrity of the system – it just creates more opportunity for errors.

The consequences of even the smallest transgression are public and humiliating, both personally and politically. Therefore, it is absolutely worth getting this right. Sadly, this report and consultation I fear leads us in the opposite direction by creating greater complexity, more rules and increased subjectivity.

It seems to me that the principal concerns here are about potential conflict of interest and neglect of constituents. Arbitrary limits on time spent on, or reward earned from, outside interests do not necessarily mirror either concern.

Time spent as a nurse also has the same impact on time available for constituents as time spent as a hedge fund manager. Again, transparency is the most effective way for constituents to determine whether they find the arrangements of their member of parliament acceptable or not.

… The code should be kept as brief as possible and enable MPs to take responsibility for themselves within broad boundaries.

The baseline assumption as a new MP seems to be that I am on the scrounge and should be treated like a child and punished at the first opportunity. If we were treated like adults we would be far more likely en masse to act like them.

The revised system should not disincentivise people who would be an asset to the Commons from applying in the first place, nor encourage those with experience of their field to leave. Equally, any new rules should not reduce the likelihood of those with professional experience seeking to enter the house.

Setting an arbitrary time limit on paid and unpaid outside interests would involve the commissioner policing an MP’s personal life and free time.

This is not a desirable, nor a practical use of the commissioner’s time, and these matters are almost impossible to police, and could result in vexatious complaints against members.

Frankly, I find the politics and personal behaviour of some politicians abhorrent. As an elected representative I have a right to make my opinions about them known, perhaps even a duty to do so.

That is why I cannot support your determination to police the comments of MPs in any medium: it might be necessary to express contempt for hateful political positions.

The stated intention of this proposal [regarding ‘respect’] is to protect against bullying and harassment in committees and divisions.

Clearly, such behaviour would be wholly unacceptable and guarding against it is an entirely worthy aim. However, this proposal has unintended consequences that damage the workings of the house.