Watchdog acts on payments for MPs' speeches

The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Elizabeth Filkin, is cracking down on outside speaking engagements by leading MPs such as Charles Kennedy and Michael Portillo because she is determined to prevent speech fees being used to circumvent the rules on members interests.

She wants to stop money owed for less innocent services being "laundered'' as fees for speeches - as happened in Washington DC until the practice was banned.

In what looked to some MPs like a tit for tat exchange, Mr Portillo's availibility to speak for up to ?5,000 was revealed by a Labour MP days after a Conservative colleague had shone a similar spotlight on Mr Kennedy - who vigorously denied any impropriety.

There is no suggestion that the Liberal Democrat leader or the shadow chancellor has done anything wrong in failing to make more explicit declarations of after-dinner speeches. It seems likely they failed to understand what is now expected of them.

Nor did the London mayor, Ken Livingstone, nor John Major, the former Tory prime minister, whose speech-making have also fallen foul of Mrs Filkin's investigations this year. In 18 months before he was elected mayor Mr Livinstone earned ?220,992 from speech making, including ?158,000 not included in the members' register.

Now any speech which earns an MP more than ?500 should be itemised.

Some 208 MPs list "occasional'' fees for speeches, journalism or broadcasting. All may have to check their records, MPs were advised in June. Some have been slow to respond.

"When in doubt consult and register,'' the independent MP, Martin Bell, said last night. Mrs Filkin, who succeeded Sir Gordon Downey as Westminster's independent watchdog on parliamentary ethics - a byproduct of Lord Nolan's anti-sleaze inquiry - is determined that MPs who make such outside speeches more than three times a year using a professional agency should register their employment agreement and the fee.

The reasoning behind the move, which is subject to oversight by the Commons standards and privileges committee, stems from US experience which led to all "honoraria'' for speeches or guest appearances being banned a decade ago.

In a series of cases, including that of Jim Wright of Texas, speaker of the house of representatives, US congressmen were found to be taking fees for speeches which were, in reality, covert payments for consultancies and similar services.

In effect, payments were being "laundered'' despite 20 years of ever-tighter efforts to clean up US politics, which is money-driven because candidates are obliged to buy costly television advertisements.

A ban on speaker's fees was therefore imposed, though members of congress are allowed to nominate a charity to which up to $2,000 (around ?1,300) can be given, provided the senate or house member does not benefit directly and that the money is not sent to the charity via the politician.

Unlike "cash for questions'' and other unsavoury conduct unearthed at Westminster, no evidence exists for similar tactics being deployed in Britain. But it has made MPs and officials sensitive to the danger.

Rules designed to oblige MPs to register outside consultancies also are written so as to require them to register employment agreements with the speakers' agencies who provide after dinner stars.

With most MPs away from Westminster, Mrs Filkin has not spoken either to Mr Kennedy or Mr Portillo. But colleagues argued that the speakers' agency was "acting for me'' in fixing up a speech -rather than the other way round, as when an MP acted in parliament on behalf of a consultancy client.

Though most complaints about MPs entries in the register were either incorrect or amicably resolved, the speech issue has caused some anger.