MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Before I call Richard Burgon, I would like to make a point to Members contributing to this morning’s debate. I remind Members to be careful if they choose to refer to other Members in this debate. If you wish to refer to a specific Member, you should have given them notice, and I would appreciate it if you mentioned this in your remarks. Please also ensure that your comments are, as always, appropriate.

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am delighted to have secured this debate, but let us be totally honest from the start: confidence in our politics has collapsed. People look at Westminster and see a political system increasingly disconnected from their lives. They see stories about freebies, dodgy donations and so-called gifts, and they see politicians collecting six-figure sums from second jobs. They know that the system is not working for them, and it chips away at the public’s trust in Parliament; it damages their confidence in democracy.

If we want politics to serve the people, not elite interests, we are going to have to take bold action. That is why I have called this debate today. Banning MPs’ second jobs is one of the key steps to restore trust in politics. I hope that the incoming Prime Minister, when giving their speech on the steps of Downing Street in the coming weeks, commits to real action to clean up our politics, because there are very dangerous forces out there that want to take advantage of public distrust to roll back basic democratic norms, as we have seen in the United States.

Before I turn to why we must ban MPs’ second jobs, I want to look at the scale of the problem. All the figures I will reference today are from Sky News’s Westminster Accounts, a database compiled from the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I commend those journalists on the work they have done, but I also want to put on record how unacceptable it is that the public cannot easily access clear information about MPs’ second jobs on Parliament’s own website. The Westminster Accounts has had to navigate the fiendishly complex way Parliament reports this, so there may well be discrepancies in the data, but if so, that is not the fault of the journalists; it is a failure of parliamentary transparency. Parliament needs to address that and start providing this information in a much more accessible way.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this timely debate. He is rightly elaborating on the need for more transparency, and he just alluded to the 10 Members whose second job income comprises the vast majority of the total. When this debate comes into the public domain, the question that always runs beside it is, “What do we need to pay MPs to preclude the need or the desire for second jobs?” Does he agree that that issue has to be dealt with, and does he think the public would be satisfied with a salary for MPs of £120,000 or £150,000 in order to preclude a small number from earning massive sums?

I must confess, when I have been out and about in my constituency and in others, I have never met anyone who says, “What we really need to do is pay MPs more.” We are already in the top 5% of earners, so I do not think that paying MPs more is the issue. Being an MP is an incredible privilege—an incredibly well-paid privilege. It is second jobs that we want to stop; we do not want to argue for further pay rises for already very well-paid MPs.

We talk about second jobs, but for some MPs there are third jobs, fourth jobs, fifth jobs, sixth jobs and many more. For some, it seems, being an MP is the second job. I am opposed to MPs having second jobs, whether those MPs are Conservative, Reform, Labour or from any other party. I do not say this to make a party political point, but it is a fact that the top 10 includes eight Conservative and two Reform MPs, including Reform’s party leader. Beyond the top 10, looking at all MPs’ outside earnings, Conservative MPs account for around 66% of the total, Reform MPs around 20%, and Labour MPs around 7%.

Can I just say—because it needs to be said—that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), the leader of Reform, is not here? On Monday, I wrote to him publicly, inviting him to come and explain why MPs should be allowed to rake in vast sums from second jobs. Yesterday it came to light that he has been getting paid £22,500 per hour promoting a gold dealer, which takes his second job earnings to approaching £2 million in just two years since the general election. That is more than £22,000 per hour for a man who last year argued that a minimum wage of £10.85 per hour for young people in his constituency, my constituency and constituencies across the country may be too much. Some man of the people! It is all very Donald Trump.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. When he talks about second jobs, I think about my constituents who have to work second jobs to pay the bills. That is where our attention should be focused. On professional qualifications, I recognise that being an MP is a full-time job. As a result, my professional qualifications had to fall, because I needed to give myself to my constituents 24/7. Will he look again at that provision in his Bill? The work we do here must be for our constituents, and we must not be distracted from that, even by professional roles such as the one I once held.

I thank my hon. Friend for her important point. The details of the Bill could be debated and amended in the House and at Committee stage, if it were taken forward, as I invite the next Prime Minister to do. I was trying to make the point that, if someone needs to do a handful of hours per year to remain on a professional register, I would have no objection. Perhaps the Bill can be enhanced and improved, including by my hon. Friend, if it progresses further. Beyond the limited exceptions that I have outlined, the practice of second jobs should end.

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate and for the way that he has outlined the issue at hand. I also commend him on the Bill that he brought forward. Does he agree that in the interim, as the Bill progressed through Parliament, there other steps that we could be take, such as changing Standing Orders and the code of conduct, and particularly in political parties? My own party has prohibited MPs from taking any other occupation.

The hon. Member has come forward with a very good idea. Of course, a party could change its own rules and expectations in that regard, but to fully clean up politics, I think that this should be passed by Parliament. This issue is going through the Modernisation Committee at the moment, and the discussions taking place there are very important.

Some will say that my restrictions are too tough. They are tough, but trust in politics has been damaged over many years, and rebuilding that trust requires bold action. That is what the public want. Parliament must show that it understands that the rot runs deep and cannot be tackled with half measures. There should be no more reviews or excuses; action is needed. I hope that the next Prime Minister will help to clean up politics and defend our democracy, starting by ending the ludicrous gravy train of MPs’ second jobs, which quite rightly turns the public’s stomachs.

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. After the next speech, I will be reducing speeches to five minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who often brings forward subjects that are close to all of our hearts. I would like to share some personal experience, and I think other Members will want to do the same. This is an important and complex issue that depends greatly on context. While I agree with what he and others have said, he mentioned some things in his speech that honestly concern me greatly, and I would gently say that we should look at individual cases.

As the Member of Parliament for Strangford since 2010, I am deeply committed to serving my constituents to the best of my ability. I believe that to deliver for my constituents is my priority in this place. When I became an MP in 2010, I decided that the best way for me to fulfil that responsibility was to give up my other jobs. I am not better than anybody else—

Order. Can I ask the hon. Gentleman to speak a little bit more loudly? We seem to be having a few issues with the audio today.

I have moved the mic a bit closer, so hopefully that will catch my words. When I became an MP in 2010, I was also a councillor; I served on Ards borough council for 26 years. I was also a Member of the Legislative Assembly for 12 years. I would have loved to stay on as a councillor, because I loved the work and that was where my heart was, but I realised that that was not going to happen. I would not be able to jump on a plane and come across to Westminster and be home in time for a meeting that night. Looking at the physical practicalities of it all, I resigned from both of those positions. I did hold all three for two months, but that was during the summer months when there were fewer meetings. I also had my own business, which I started in 1985. I gifted that business to my son. Personally speaking, this is now my one job, and it is all I can do if I want to give it my best shot and do the best I can. None the less, I do not believe that all Members should automatically be required to give up outside employment if it has no impact on their ability to do their job here.

Members should be permitted to consider carefully whether any additional role could compromise their ability to carry out effectively their duties as an MP. Are they being lobbied by certain groups? I say this respectfully and kindly, because I have no evidence to prove anything and therefore I will not say anything more specific; that would be wrong, but I hope that having other jobs would not unnecessarily influence a Member’s capability to do the job that they are committed to here.

On the issue of any complexity adversely affecting a Member’s ability in the House, does my hon. Friend agree that while we all should be open and transparent and the register should be kept up to date, as the mover of the motion said, the final arbiter on all these issues has to be the voters? When the voters decide that a small number of MPs may be getting extraordinarily large, unacceptably large, sums of money, they decide at the election that they do not want that and they replace them with someone else.

Yes. Ultimately, our electorate makes that decision. That applies in any sphere and to any action that an MP may carry out. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

In my view, a complete restriction on second jobs would be an unfair limitation on Members. What do I mean by that? I agree with almost 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said; I just think that sometimes we need to look at the thing in a bigger way. I fully recognise that outside interests must be strictly regulated. There must be conditions; there has to be a declaration of all interests, and that has to be transparent. Wherever the things are, there must be an explanation, and it must fall within the rules of the House. Any changes made to the rules set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority and the House of Commons code of conduct should provide clear guidance for Members and constituents alike.

Many Members bring to the House valuable professional experience and expertise from outside interests. They bring knowledge. We all do that from our walks of life—individually, from the people we have represented over the years or perhaps just from the social circle that we move in. Maintaining links with professions when it is appropriate to do so has the potential to strengthen the quality of parliamentary debates, improve the scrutiny of legislation and ensure that Members remain connected to the experiences and challenges faced by people outside our offices and Westminster. That is the very thing that the hon. Member for Leeds East referred to—those experiences, and those interactions with our constituents.

With immediate effect, I ask Members to keep their speeches to around five minutes.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate and on his extremely powerful speech. Despite being members of the same party, we come from very different traditions within the labour movement, but I am pleased that on this issue—one that is critical to commanding public confidence in the mother of all Parliaments—we are in violent agreement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, which builds on my experience at two FTSE 100 firms advising on, among other things, how to manage conflicts of interest.

Let us remind ourselves that only 4% of the public believe politicians do what is best for the country, according to YouGov, while polling from More in Common found that 87% of Britons have either not very much or no trust in politicians. Despite reforms made shortly after the last general election, despite our own registration and code of conduct requirements, which are independently policed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and despite an ongoing inquiry into outside employment being undertaken by the Committee on Standards, this institution is not moving swiftly enough or with enough ambition to satisfy me that I can look my constituents in the eye and tell them that the risks—perceived or actual—around outside employment are properly managed to my satisfaction.