Critics highlight lack of moral dimension, say use of offices gives false feel of an official position Virtual panel was presented by organising legal firm as evidence gathering session for political prisoners in Saudi Arabia LONDON: British MPs Layla Moran and Crispin Blunt have both admitted on Saturday to using their House of Commons offices to engage in paid, non-governmental work. The “work” in question was a Zoom panel organised by a private law firm discussing human rights in Saudi Arabia, a country which enjoys strong, historic ties with the United Kingdom. While at first glance such an admission would warrant no grave concerns, the reality is quite the opposite — as the incident raises serious questions as to whether or not external parties or foreign governments could procure lobbyists or law firms to engage MPs directly or indirectly to appear as if they are talking on behalf of the British government. Both MPs appeared via Zoom on a panel organised by law firm Bindmans LLP discussing political prisoners in Saudi Arabia last November. The law firm described the meeting as an evidence collecting session where it heard testimonies from human rights groups and family members of held activists. However, no representative or spokesperson from the Saudi government was present to provide the kingdom’s point of view, or correct any inaccurate statements which may have been made. Given the fact that both Moran and Crispin were speaking from their official House of Commons offices, some experts argue this may be misconstrued by attendees to give the discussion “a feeling of an official UK government position”, when it was not. While the UK government does not comment on individual cases, events hosted by individual MP"s do not represent the UK government"s policy positions. However, such events do not usually occur from the parliament offices. The other factor criticised by experts here is deploying a ‘pay to play’ attitude towards a serious matter such as human rights. Critics say this gives “a bad reputation” to MPs that any foe of any country can use them to if they are prepared to pay the right price. This is seen especially critical as Moran is also the Lib Dem’s foreign affairs spokeswoman. As a matter of fact, Moran was paid £3,000 by the firm and Blunt received £6,000 to attend the session and head the testimonials. One former British parliamentarian tells Arab News: “Whereas there might or might not be nothing legally wrong, how is it okay to be paid to attend a human rights session? Where is the moral dimension? I would have been ridiculed for the rest of my life had I engaged in something like this 15 years ago.” While Moran did not respond to multiple requests from Arab News for comment, Blunt responded in an email stating that: “The British constitution has Government ministers present as members of Parliament or the House of Lords so they can be directly accountable to their fellow Parliamentarians.” “Other than a very, very basic misunderstanding, people would have no reason to believe these reports represented UK Government views. People would have every reason to believe the reports were authoritative and independent. They have also stood the test of time too,” he told Arab News. He also went on to state that he and his fellow MPs were on the Detention Review Panel reports where the basis of the panel, the research and evidence underpinning our report’s analysis “were made clear.” “I should also point out that of the five parliamentarians who served on the three panels only Lord Edward Faulks, a former Justice minister, was a lawyer by profession. We were however advised by senior legal counsel, who were experienced in both international law and human rights law.” In response to the media backlash, MP Moran - who represents Oxford West and Abingdon - apologised and said this would not be repeated; however MP Blunt - who represents Reigate - sought to defend himself in interviews with local media. “MPs are being subjected to an absurd feeding frenzy by the media in relation to their additional work that is now doing wider damage to the institution of Parliament by creating a wholly inaccurate image in the mind of the wider public,” Blunt said in a statement. However, this is not the first out-of-office payment scandal Blunt finds himself in. Last month, the Reigate MP was found to being paid £117 an-hour — £15,000 a-year — by a firm that provides accommodation to asylum seekers, months after the very firm itself was accused of paying its staff less than the minimum wage. According to the code of conduct that governs MPs’ behaviour: “Members are personally responsible and accountable for ensuring that their use of any expenses, allowances, facilities and services provided from the public purse is in accordance with the rules laid down on these matters.” “Members shall ensure that their use of public resources is always in support of their parliamentary duties. It should not confer any undue personal or financial benefit on themselves or anyone else.” British citizens took to social media to vent out in frustration at the MPs, with user Marko Von Richards tweeting “There is NO reasonable interpretation for your statement “any reasonable interpretation the work would meet a definition of being ‘parliamentary’” If it were ‘parliamentary’ your MP salary would cover it, not and extra £6000 @CrispinBlunt. Time to resign.” Another user wrote “@CrispinBlunt your not paid as an MP for reigate to work on any thing else, Saudi is not part of Britain the last time I looked, Try concentrating on things that matter to your voters, And worry less about your wallet.”