3) The divided loyalties argument is based on the much respected principle that "no man can serve two masters". Once again this is so elementary and so well established that it seems surprising that, long before now, the obvious course of ensuring unitary employment on behalf of the people represented, through a parliamentary salary, has not firmly been established.
4) The Honourable Members argument deals with questions of interpretation as to what cash does or does not qualify and which questions have caused so much difficulty in the past. The "No Other Wage" is unequivocal and so these problems of interpretation disappear. The Honourable Members know that should any transgression be discovered the penalties will be most severe.
5) The above reproach argument concerns the improvement of the status of politicians. With the No Other Wage rule being understood and the steady declining by Members to accept benefits or to be associated with any financial transaction related to their own services (including charities and other fund-raising), being appreciated, it would be expected that their reputation would be enhanced.
6) The external activities argument would see MPs engaging in a full range of industrial and commercial activities and pursuing other interests, writing, speaking or briefing themselves in any walk of life. However there will be no direct or indirect reward, no passing payments on to charities, etc. Any expenses will have to be met out of their own pocket or, if duly approved, from parliamentary funds. The "No Other Wage" rules apply throughout their elected term and there can be no deferred benefits, payments to family or other dodges for any activities during this period. The rules also apply for capital gains and acquisitions which must similarly not exceed either the sums expended by the Member or that which would be regarded as a normal rate of growth available to anybody.
7) The government posts argument allows that for the extra responsibilities and status the Members' income may be augmented by ministerial and other government post emoluments. These payments, too, would be seen as coming from parliamentary
funds by virtue of the scrutiny which Parliament exercises over government expenditure and which, in turn, are subject to some degree of democratic sanction.
4) The Honourable Members argument deals with questions of interpretation as to what cash does or does not qualify and which questions have caused so much difficulty in the past. The "No Other Wage" is unequivocal and so these problems of interpretation disappear. The Honourable Members know that should any transgression be discovered the penalties will be most severe.
5) The above reproach argument concerns the improvement of the status of politicians. With the No Other Wage rule being understood and the steady declining by Members to accept benefits or to be associated with any financial transaction related to their own services (including charities and other fund-
7) The government posts argument allows that for the extra responsibilities and status the Members' income may be augmented by ministerial and other government post emoluments. These payments, too, would be seen as coming from parliamentary
funds by virtue of the scrutiny which Parliament exercises over government expenditure and which, in turn, are subject to some degree of democratic sanction.
