MPs' second jobs

Second jobs: Developments in the 2024 Parliament

MPs are currently allowed to take second jobs but are prohibited by the Code of Conduct for MPs (PDF) from providing paid parliamentary advice.

Labour manifesto pledge to restrict MP second jobs

The Labour Party manifesto for the 2024 general election said it would ban MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy work:

The absence of rules on second jobs also means some constituents end up with MPs who spend more time on their second job, or lobbying for outside interests, than on representing them. Therefore, as an initial step, Labour will support an immediate ban on MPs from taking up paid advisory or consultancy roles. We will task the Modernisation Committee to take forward urgent work on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents and the country.

On 25 July 2024, after a single debate the House agreed changes to the definition of paid parliamentary advice (see below) and agreed to establish the Modernisation Committee.

In the debate, Lucy Powell, then Leader of the House of Commons said:

Let me turn to the Committee’s initial work. I hope that, as one of our first steps, we will look further into the question of Members’ outside employment (c862).

The Modernisation Committee asked the Committee on Standards to consider this matter. On 8 January 2025, the Committee on Standards opened an inquiry into Outside employment and interests . The committee has taken oral evidence. For more information on the committee’s inquiry, see below.

Government position on MPs’ second jobs

In February 2026, the government told the House of Commons that it is “committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification”.

In June 2026, the Leader of the House of Commons wrote to the Committee on Standards (PDF) setting out the government’s view that further restrictions on MPs’ second jobs are necessary and that an MP’s primary duty is to serve their constituents. While acknowledging there was no set of rules to account for all situations, he set out three principles that should be considered in determining whether a second job was appropriate:

• Time: does the work pose a significant distraction;
• Money: do the earnings that an individual is gaining from this work give the impression of the second job being their primary source of income; and
• Influence: does the Member’s second job influence their primary job, both in terms of performance and the potential for conflicts of interest.

On 1 July 2026, Richard Burgon (Lab) led a debate in Westminster Hall on the potential merits of a prohibition on second jobs for MPs (for more information on the debate, see below). Richard Burgon subsequently introduced the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of second Jobs) (Motion) Bill 2026–27, on 15 July 2026.

The current position

MPs are currently allowed to take second jobs.

However, the Code of Conduct for MPs (PDF, para 9) prohibits MPs from providing paid parliamentary advice:

Members must not provide, or agree to provide, paid parliamentary advice, including undertaking, or agreeing to undertake services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant.

The Guide to the Rules (chapter 4, para 2) provides some guidance on what this prohibition covers. Please note the guide has not been updated to reflect changes made in 2024, so the parts that have been removed are noted:

This prohibits Members from advising outside organisations or persons on process, for example, how they may lobby or otherwise influence the work of Parliament, in return for payment. The following is not parliamentary advice:

[removed on 25 July 2024] a) advice on public policy and current affairs;

[removed on 25 July 2024] b) advice in general terms about how Parliament works; and

c) media appearances, journalism, books, public lectures and speeches.

MPs who take on outside employment must have a contract or written statement detailing their duties. They must record income from employment and earnings in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. According to the Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members (PDF, chapter 1, para 2), they have to record “payments received (of whatever size) for any employment outside the House once they have received a total of over £300 in payments from the same source in a calendar year”.

Threshold

The £300 threshold was introduced from 1 March 2023. The House agreed it on 12 December 2022, when it approved the revised Guide to the Rules appended to the House of Commons Committee on Standards report on New Code of Conduct: final proposals (PDF), published in July 2022.

These changes followed a review of the Code of Conduct, which the Committee on Standards began in September 2020.

In November 2021, the committee proposed (in a consultation document (PDF)) to “introduce a ban on Members providing paid parliamentary advice, consultancy, or strategy services”. The committee also considered whether the House could implement a requirement that MPs’ outside activities should be “within reasonable limits”, as proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life (see below) and endorsed by the House, after an opposition day debate, on 17 November 2021.

This opposition day followed various debates on standards and how the House of Commons should police its standards regime after Owen Paterson was found to have breached the House’s paid advocacy rules. On 17 November 2021, the House agreed a government amendment to the opposition motion. It called on the Committee on Standards to examine recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life (the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ethics issues, now the Ethics and Integrity Commission) in its ongoing review of the Code of Conduct.

The Committee on Standards concluded that a measure limiting the time an MP could spend on outside interests, or the amount they could earn, should “only be implemented with broad cross-party support” (PDF, para 192).

In the assessment of its consultation, the Committee on Standards reported that no restriction should be introduced on the amount of time an MP could spend on outside work, nor on the income they might receive from it (PDF, para 118).

The committee restated its view that such a change required broad support, which it had not detected and it highlighted some difficulties with such a proposal:

We concluded in our November 2021 report that a “significant change” in the ability of Members to hold outside interests “should only be implemented with broad cross-party support”. We have detected no such support in evidence received to our consultation. Indeed, we have observed that there is a conflict between various proposed objectives: roles which might present a conflict of interest could be kept within defined time or income limits, and roles which are highly remunerated may only take up a small proportion of a Member’s time. (para 117)

Westminster Hall debate on prohibiting second hobs for MPs (July 2026)

On 1 July 2026, in a Westminster Hall debate on MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition, which he initiated, Richard Burgon (Labour) called for a ban on MPs holding second jobs. He said he had introduced a bill in 2022, and he hoped it would become law under the new Prime Minister.

Richard Burgon reviewed the arguments for allowing MPs to have second jobs. He said the contention that “second jobs provide valuable real-world experience” was “laughable”. He said MPs took highly paid second jobs, not “the jobs of ordinary workers”. He said his bill demonstrated that it was not “too difficult” to implement a ban: “It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions”. It would allow MPs to do work necessary to maintain professional qualifications and to work out a notice period if they were unexpectedly elected to Parliament.

In the debate, MPs considered the importance of maintaining public confidence that “Members’ outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place”.

Some supported a total ban “except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service”; to allow “100% of our time, energy and effort [to] be focused on serving our constituents”.

Lisa Smart said the Liberal Democrats did not favour a total ban on second jobs:

The Lib Dems do not feel that there is a strong enough argument for a blanket ban on MPs taking second jobs; we do not believe that that would be the right answer. It would force NHS doctors, care nurses and legal aid barristers to surrender their professional registrations to serve in Parliament—that would be a concerning and counterproductive unintended consequence. We do not want a Parliament made up exclusively of career politicians.

Mike Wood (Conservative) said, “The public rightly expect us to be working for them, rather than prioritising our own interests, and we must make sure that that is what we are doing”. He said that if a ban was being considered, clarity was needed as to why – was it because a job diverted too much time from representing constituents or was money the concern. However, questions about money could lead to “an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs”, and he noted that some medical jobs were highly paid. He concluded by saying:

Trying to put together a rigid set of formal rules that allows the activities we happen to approve of while preventing those that we find unpalatable is a recipe for hypocrisy and administrative chaos. It risks leaving Parliament poorer rather than our constituents better served. Ultimately, the best people to judge whether an MP’s outside work prevents them from being an effective Member of Parliament are the voters in that MP’s constituency—if they have the full and proper information available.

Let us ensure absolute transparency. Let us publish every hour and every pound in the register for the world to see. Then let us trust the British public to look at that record, weigh it against the service they receive and render their unappealable verdict at the ballot box.

Anna Turley, the Minister without Portfolio, spoke for the government. She reported a statement made in February 2026 by Darren Jones, then Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister:

The Government are committed to the principle that second jobs for Members of Parliament should be banned outside very limited exceptions, such as maintaining a professional qualification.

Anna Turley noted the Committee on Standards’ ongoing inquiry into outside employment and interests, and said that the Leader of the House of Commons had written to the committee setting out the government’s expectations (see above).

Anna Turley said the government believed there were three core areas and set out three principles:

1. MPs should not have a job that “poses a distraction from an MP’s primary duty to Parliament and constituents”.
2. “any earnings from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is the MP’s primary source of income”.
3. “a job must not have an influence, or be perceived as having an influence, on an MP’s behaviour and the way they undertake their parliamentary duties”.

She said that some examples of MPs spending large amounts of time or earning large amounts of money “do not just diminish the individual Member of Parliament. They diminish this place and our democracy, and they do a great disservice [to the public]”.

The Committee on Standards’ inquiry into outside employment and interests

On 8 January 2025, the Committee on Standards opened an inquiry into outside employment and interests. The committee has taken oral evidence and published written evidence that it has received. It has not yet published a report.

It has held oral evidence sessions with the following witnesses:

13 May 2025:

• Cristina Nicolotti Squires, Group Director for Broadcasting and Media at Ofcom
• Kate Davies, Public Policy Director at Ofcom

20 May 2025 (first panel):

• Sebastian Enser-Wight, Chief Strategy Officer at Global Media & Entertainment
• Tom Cheal, Senior Managing Editor at LBC

20 May 2025 (second panel):

• Professor David Hine, Emeritus Fellow and Tutor in Politics at Christ Church, University of Oxford
• Alex Parsons, Democracy Lead at MySociety
• Ms Rose Whiffen, Senior Research Officer at Transparency International UK

10 June 2025 (first panel):

• Doug Chalmers CB DSO OBE, Chair at Committee on Standards in Public Life

10 June 2025 (second panel):

• Mark Swindells, Assistant Director of Public Affairs and National Offices at General Medical Council

15 July 2025:

• Mark Neale, Director General at Bar Standards Board
• Paul Phillip, Chief Executive at Solicitors Regulation Authority
• Dr John Sorabji, Associate Professor at UCL Laws

The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s historical views on MPs’ outside interests

The independent Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL) has looked at this issue on several occasions. Its 2009 and 2018 recommendations on MPs’ outside interests have not been implemented.

CSPL recommendations from 2009

The CSPL’s report, MPs’ expenses and allowances: Supporting Parliament, safeguarding the public (PDF), was published in November 2009.

The CSPL considered that an outside interest was “any form of activity outside the time commitments for which an MP receives payment and which might create a conflict of interest or time commitments which stop the MP from actively fulfilling his or her primary role, or both” (para 11.4).

The CSPL noted that in its First Report, in 1995, it had concluded that it was “desirable for the House of Commons to contain Members with a wide variety of continuing outside interests”. It noted that since 1995, sitting hours had changed, there had been a rise in constituency work, and more MPs had political backgrounds. It noted a range of views on whether outside interests were good or bad for MPs and their constituents. It recommended that:

MPs should remain free to undertake some paid activity outside the House of Commons, provided it is kept within reasonable limits and there is transparency about the nature of the activity and the amount of time spent on it (Recommendation 34).

It argued that this would allow electors to decide whether to vote for someone who was not devoting their time to their parliamentary duties.

CSPL recommendations from 2018

In its 2018 report, MPs’ outside interests (PDF), the CSPL expressed its regret that the recommendations it had made on MPs’ outside interests in its 2009 had “not been fully acted upon by government and Parliament”.

It noted, again, that a majority of MPs did not hold outside interests, but it was concerned that “where a small number of individuals have taken up outside interests beyond what might be considered reasonable, it risks undermining trust in Parliament and Parliamentarians”.

In its 2018 report, it examined how to interpret and police “reasonable limits”. It considered that neither time limits nor financial limits on outside interests were appropriate. Some MPs had to spend specific amounts of time on maintaining professional registration (doctors, nurses, and so on). In other cases, earnings came from royalties and did not take time.

It proposed that regulation of MPs’ outside interests should be based on the principle that any outside roles MPs undertake, whether or not they were paid, should not prevent MPs from fully undertaking the range of duties expected of them in their primary role as an MP. The first recommendation of the 2018 report was that the Code of Conduct should include this requirement. Any breach of this principle should trigger an investigation by the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Dependent on the findings of that investigation, sanctions should be recommended by the Commons Committee on Standards.

The CSPL argued that it was not appropriate for MPs to engage in “paid political or Parliamentary advisory or consultancy work” because this risked “perpetuating the public concern that MPs are using their public office for personal gain” (p14).

The CSPL noted that such activity was not permitted in other UK legislatures and recommended that the MPs’ Code of Conduct should be updated to state:

MPs should not accept any paid work to provide services as a Parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, for example, advising on Parliamentary affairs or on how to influence Parliament and its members. (Recommendation 10).

The CSPL also recommended that:

• any information MPs registered on their outside interests should be “digitally accessible” and that declarations made in debate should be identifiable
• the rules on registration of interests should be reviewed
• non-financial interests should be registered on the same basis as financial interests
• changes should be made to the rules on accepting gifts
• parliamentary candidates should be required to publish details of any outside interests they intended to continue to hold after election.