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.

In total, MPs have taken an eye watering £11 million in outside earnings since the general election. The top 10 MPs account for over £7 million in total, so just 10 MPs have pocketed nearly two thirds of all second job money declared.

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.

We hear a lot about why second jobs are acceptable, but the public know that when an MP can earn more for a couple of hours’ so called work than a nurse earns in a year, there is something deeply broken in our politics and change is needed. There is no doubting the scale of the problem.

In 2022, I presented the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, a private Member’s Bill for a total ban on MPs’ second jobs. I hope that can become law under the new Prime Minister. I welcome the steps taken by this Government to restrict second jobs, but so far they go nowhere near far enough. We need a proper ban. The key principle of my Bill is straightforward. Being an MP is a well paid privilege. The nearly £100,000 a year salary places us in the highest 5% of earners in the country, so being an MP should be a full time job. The public elect us to represent them, to fight their corner and to devote our time to their concerns. They do not elect MPs to spend their time lining their pockets. When MPs do that, they short change the public who pay them and they undermine our democracy. We even have 18 MPs who have been paid more from their second jobs than from their MP’s salary. For them, it seems, that being a Member of Parliament is a second job.

If someone wishes to pursue a highly paid private sector career, they are entitled to do so. But if that is the MP’s priority, they should resign. Our democracy would be better for it. We do not need MPs here chasing ever more cash. Another obvious reason to ban MPs’ second jobs is that they create real conflicts of interest. An MP should have one loyalty—loyalty to the people who sent them here. The moment other employers pay an MP tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or in some cases even well over a million, divided loyalties arise. People rightly ask, “Who comes first: the constituents who elected them or the company paying them?” No one can serve two masters.

Even if people claim there is no conflict of interest, it is clear that second jobs fuel a growing sense that politics is becoming detached from everyday life. Politics should be about public service, not personal enrichment. So many families across the country are under massive financial pressure, struggling through no fault of their own. They work long hours, struggle with rising bills and worry themselves sick about making ends meet. Is it any surprise that people are angry when MPs get more from their second jobs than ordinary workers earn in a year?

I have campaigned against second jobs for many years. When I do, one argument always gets raised. We are told that second jobs provide valuable real world experience. Frankly, that argument is laughable. Highly paid second jobs do not bring MPs closer to the real world, because real people do not live like that. Huge second salaries are the experience of a tiny elite, not of the vast majority of constituents we are here to serve.

It is funny that the MPs who claim to want real world experience never seem to find it doing the jobs of ordinary workers, such as stacking shelves, driving buses or caring for the elderly in a care home. I did not find too many of those jobs in the list of MPs’ extra earnings. The reason is obvious: it is really about getting money, not real world experience. If MPs genuinely wanted real world experience, they would seek it where real people actually work, not in corporate board rooms. When people say that Parliament should benefit from a diverse range of life experience and professional expertise, I totally agree; but that should be from the experiences they gained before being elected, not from corporate contracts secured because they are MPs.

The other argument we always hear is that a ban would be too difficult, but it would not. My Bill shows exactly how it can be done. It would prohibit MPs from holding paid second jobs, while allowing sensible exceptions. The Bill is not about stopping a genuine public service. A doctor or nurse treating patients is serving the public; sitting on a corporate board for large pay cheques is not. My Bill would not stop someone doing the limited hours of work needed to maintain professional qualifications, nor would it stop someone working out a short notice period when unexpectedly elected to Parliament.

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.

On a personal note, my job and my business was selling bacon and sausage. I sold everything in the pig except for the squeak, and that is a fact, and it reared my family. It kept my wife at home to look after the children. We got a good holiday every year, and it paid the mortgage. We did well out of it, but way back when I was doing that—I have to cast my mind back—I was up at 5 am, went home and showered and was in the office for 9. My employee would carry on the run for the rest of the day. In all those years I was in the Assembly, we did that, but when I was elected to Westminster, I recognised that that was just never going to happen, so I gifted the business to my son. It was no longer a matter of nipping home after the run. I could not just nip home and go from Newtownards to London. It would be impossible to do the job well. I was able to do both back then, but I could never do that again; it just cannot happen. My duty was and should always be to my Strangford constituents. That is how it must be, and how it has been since 2010.

Members are ultimately elected in service of the public. Maintaining public confidence is of the utmost importance. The hon. Member for Leeds East referred to confidence, and I also think that is a critical factor. Transparency and accountability are two issues that must be at the heart of any reforms, but I think that public confidence may be the key issue. Constituents should have confidence that Members’ outside interests do not interfere with their primary responsibilities of representation in this place.

I want to also underline the fact that we pay Sinn Féin MPs to not take their seats here and carry out their most basic functions. If we are to change anything, perhaps it should be their eligibility for election.

I believe that those who can easily carry out a few hours of work must be able to do so, in so far as they still perform their roles in this House. I always think of that old adage, “If you want something done, give it to a busy person.” Perhaps we should allow Members to strike that balance. I have tried to strike that balance. I try to live my life in such a way that I practise what I preach. I can only do the one job; I cannot do any more, and I recognise that. Although I agree with 99.9% of what the hon. Member for Leeds East said, I do think it is better that Members should make their own choice.

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.

I mentioned those measures taken or in train because I give credit where credit is due. It would be remiss of me to say that nothing has been done—clearly that is not the case. The Government’s decision to remove the exemption that allowed MPs to provide advice on current affairs and how Parliament works was very welcome, but the issue has not gone away. Before, it was Owen Paterson, Matt Hancock, Nadine Dorries and Scott Benton who caused significant damage to the reputation of individual Members of Parliament and our democratic institutions, but now we have other Members of this House racking up huge salaries elsewhere. They have been warned in advance that I intend to mention them today.

Take the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is conspicuous, as ever, by his absence. He has declared a total of 16 other jobs and around 800 hours worked alongside his role as a Member of this place. Just yesterday, the Financial Times reported that he is receiving £22,500 an hour for promoting a gold bullion dealer—not bad for someone who has also received what he has variously described as a “gift” or a “reward” from his billionaire crypto backer, Christopher Harborne. Mr Western, you know my views about money in politics from past conversations.

Meanwhile, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) chalked up around 500 hours of outside employment in the last year. Indeed, the £60,000 paid out by a Luxembourg bank in May alone is one and a half times the average national salary. Do the people of Clacton or of Torridge and Tavistock not deserve a full time MP?

On 6 November 2024, the Modernisation Committee invited the Committee on Standards to inquire into whether outside interests or employment should be reformed in the Members’ code of conduct. I think the Standards Committee is still hearing evidence; the last evidence was heard on 15 July 2025, and no report has yet been published. Regrettably, it feels like we are moving at a glacial speed, when outside these walls, business is going on at an increasingly fast moving pace.

In my old line of work as an anti bribery and corruption compliance specialist, it would be unheard of for an employee to be holding down two jobs, unless they held part time elected office or were, for instance, an armed forces reservist. Why are second jobs permitted? In my view, they are a hangover from Victorian days. They do not reflect modern ways of working and do not account for modern demands on any hon. Member’s time, including 24/7 rolling news and constituents making contact by email or phone. I say yes to continuous professional development, but we are living in a wild west scenario with no controls on how much time is spent, or how much income can be gained, on work outside Parliament.

Members can earn 10 times their parliamentary salary on what are supposedly second, third or even fourth jobs. That gives rise to a question that any member of the public would be within their right to ask: if a Member of this House is earning more outside the House than they are as a Member, is being an elected representative not in fact their second job and their lower priority? That matters because it gives the impression that Members’ obligations in this place are not at the forefront of our minds.

Mooted reforms to lobbying and civil service governance must sit alongside modernisation of how this place operates if we are to build a functional 21st century system that prevents inherent conflicts of interest from arising and encourages the right behaviours from all Members. If we expect the ministerial code to be updated, electoral law to be reformed and the revolving door to be policed more stridently, we should also expect demands on this place to be tightened.

I agree with the likes of Transparency International and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East that there should be a total proscription on all secondary employment, except in order to maintain a professional qualification, undertake political activity or provide an essential public service. I know that the people of Bolton West deserve every hour I can find in the day to do what I can to improve my constituency. Do the people of each and every constituency in this country not deserve the same?

Order. With immediate effect, there will be a five minute limit on speeches.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this very important debate.

Serving as a Member of Parliament is a huge honour and a privilege. It is more than a full time job—and it should be, because it is a job that is about public service. That should be the only reason that anybody puts themselves forward for election to this place, and it should be the only reason that anybody has the privilege of serving in this place. One hundred per cent of our available time, energy and skill should be focused on serving our constituents—that and absolutely nothing else. It is really very simple: there should be no time available in an MP’s day for doing a second job, still less 16 second jobs. Our constituents’ needs for us to serve and represent them absolutely can fill every moment available, and more.

It is utterly shocking to me that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—and yes, I notified him that I would be naming him in this debate—has apparently raked in £2 million over his past two years of “service” as a Member of Parliament. Just yesterday we heard that he was paid £270,000 for 12 hours of work. It is frankly obscene—

Immoral.

And, indeed, immoral that somebody is earning more in a couple of hours than the average person—well, more than the average person; nurses, teachers and others who dedicate their lives to public service—will in a year. It is extraordinary that in this day and age, this is still allowed. I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) that it is a hangover from centuries past. It is totally inappropriate for a modern Parliament. One hundred per cent of our time and energy should be focused on serving our constituents.

Why is it that this total anachronism endures and that those who do not have the interests of public service at heart are able to waft about doing all sorts of other things that do not contribute to the public interest whatsoever, but are motivated solely by what is simply personal greed? Let us call a spade a spade. If somebody is doing this sort of “work”, for these sorts of sums, there can be only one motivation: personal enrichment and greed. That has no place in a public servant, still less a public servant who has the honour of serving as one of just 650 MPs in this House, the mother of Parliaments. We must stop it.

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Leeds East: we need a full ban on second jobs. Yes, we hope that Members will bring outside experience into Parliament, but let us achieve that by electing a far more diverse range of people, from all walks of life, to have the honour of serving here, and let us take steps in our parties to ensure that we do so. But once we are here, 100% of our time, energy and effort should be focused on serving our constituents. Otherwise, there is a total conflict of interest: are we serving ourselves or serving the public? We must be here to serve the public.

I call on the Minister and the next Prime Minister to finally end this outrageous, obscene anachronism. We must not count on the individual conscience of every Member, given that we can clearly see, unfortunately, that a tiny handful do not share a commitment to public service. Let us ensure that the baseline and benchmark is that nobody has a second job, and that everybody who has the honour of being here is 100% focused on serving our constituents.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for bringing this really important issue to the House. As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western.

Listen, it is not my intention to mention gold bullion dealers or Members who are making £22,500 an hour. It is not my intention to mention MPs who do Cameos. It is not my intention to discuss cryptocurrency dealers or mention TV presenters. It is not my intention to mention shady donations, which stain our politics—the real problem is that when our politics are stained, all MPs in this place are tarred with the same brush. Perhaps I should have mentioned all that—I would love to raise some of the shady dealings that happen in this place—but I have not notified the individuals concerned.

What is this about? Is it about money? Is it about transparency? Is it about accountability? Is it about all of that? I am perplexed. I am an MP in the north east of England. I love the place—born and bred—and I see how people are struggling. How can MPs have second jobs? I forget the figure, but my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) talked about thousands of hours being spent on second jobs—one, two, three, four, five and more second jobs. How can this be the case? I need somebody to tell us, because I am working my socks off for my constituents, and rightly so—that is what I was elected for, and it is what everybody elected to this place should be here to do.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) —he is no longer in his seat—talked about MPs’ wages, but £96,500 as an MP? I feel like a millionaire, man! I’m so rich it’s unbelievable! But I am representing my residents. People on the national minimum wage of £12.71 an hour, working a 40-hour week, are on roughly £26,416. That is what stress is. That is why we need to be looking after people. We hear from various MPs here, “We’re under lots of stress.” I will tell you what stress is: when you cannot feed the kids or put clothes on them. That is stress, and that is certainly not what I see here.

Forty five per cent of people say that they almost never trust any Government, and 68% say that second jobs should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. I agree with that. I think the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East is fantastic and it has my full support. How can individuals go to the jungle in Australia to do “I’m a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here!”? Many MPs might feel when they are sitting in Parliament on a Thursday, “Get me out of here,” but seriously, how can any MP do that without any sanctions? It is absolutely disgraceful. It is a huge disrespect to the people we represent. They need to understand that we are on their side. They need to understand that not everybody is on this gravy train because, quite frankly, that is simply not the case.

I have not even started on my speech, but I will conclude simply by saying that we need to build trust with the general public. It is lost—it is gone. We cannot blame members of the public for that, given the amounts of money people have mentioned. We need to focus on the immense issues facing our priority—our constituents.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this timely and important debate. I know how hard he has worked on this issue over a number of years.

Before the general election, Labour wanted to ban second jobs for MPs. It seems that ambition has now been placed on the “too difficult” pile to deal with another time, but the issue has not gone away. Public trust in politicians and institutions is at an all time low, and we are duty bound as elected Members to change that for the sake of democracy itself. Being an MP is a full time job. In fact, it can and often does become a way of life. We never truly switch off, even on a rare free day.

Before coming to this place, I worked for over 20 years as an operating department practitioner in the NHS. Long days, staying late and overtime were the norm, but I could leave my work at the door. I must admit, I would not want to do surgery working at home—it is not particularly suited to it. I am pleased that my hon. Friend has made exceptions for people like me who have a professional registration to maintain. Doctors, lawyers, nurses and allied health professionals work hard to gain their qualifications and registrations, and regular practice is required to maintain them. I also served as a local councillor for Wollaston and Stourbridge Town before coming to this place. My term was due to end in 2028, but I always said I would stand down at the next electoral cycle as it would not be feasible or fair to my residents for me to hold both roles. I stood down in May this year, having served without taking an allowance.

However, that is not what we mean when we talk about second jobs. We mean paid consultancy and advisory work, often with conflicts of interest and lobbying expectations; paid roles as TV presenters; and people being paid for giving speeches and attending events. It all adds fuel to the fire of public commentary about elected politicians having noses in the trough and being on the gravy train—and let us not forget those brown envelopes.

I believe that most hon. Members come to this place in earnest to serve their constituents and communities and to make people’s lives better, but those who seek to use it as an opportunity to bolster their bank accounts have not come here in good faith, and they damage public trust in all of us. We are not here to serve big businesses and corporate interests, or to facilitate contracts with Government and make introductions to important people. A clear line needs to be drawn under scandalous second jobs, and it is in our gift as Government to do so. Even during the covid lockdowns, when the rest of us were staying at home to prevent infection spreading—I was working as an operating department practitioner in emergency maternity theatres—some MPs saw it as a golden opportunity to cash in, with second jobs and dodgy contracts totalling nearly £5 million.

While we are debating corruption and trust, I must also mention ongoing concerns about companies lobbying hon. Members, offering them hospitality or gifts. Those companies then appear in Hansard or in communications with the Government down the line. None of that is about what we know; it is all about who we know. Members should always have their eyes wide open to possible corruption and influence from outside bodies.

An MP’s time is best spent prioritising their constituencies and the people they serve. If any Member feels their remuneration is not adequate, perhaps they should consider a different job. My current salary is nearly three and half times higher than what I have earned at any point in my career and I recognise the enormous privilege that has been bestowed on me, especially in the context of the ongoing cost of living crisis. It is also a huge privilege to represent my hometown of Stourbridge and the wonderful people who sent me here. They are the top of my agenda.

This is an opportunity to show that MPs are not just out for themselves and to begin restoring public trust. Let us ban second jobs and start transforming our democracy with transparency, accountability and integrity.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for securing this hugely important debate and for his leadership on this issue over a long period.

At its heart, this debate is about public service, trust, standards and whether being a Member of Parliament is a full time duty to the people, or a platform for private enrichment and personal gain. Let us say plainly what people across this country already know: being an MP is not a side hustle, a brand or a boost to corporate boardrooms, consultancy fees, television contracts, crypto fortunes or commercial deals. Public office is not a business model; it is a privilege.

We are sent here by our constituents and we are paid by the public. Our first, last and every loyalty must be to the people we represent. Since the 2024 general election there have been welcome reforms, but they are only small steps. Members of this House can still earn extraordinary sums through media work, publishing and corporate linked interest. The public have every right to ask why.

In Liverpool West Derby, people are working almost every hour they can and still struggling to make ends meet. Families are choosing between eating and heating. In the last six months, I have been across the country with the Right to Food Commission, and I have heard exactly the same stories: children growing up in poverty, parents skipping meals, pensioners dreading their next bill and workers taking second jobs not to get rich, but simply to survive and keep afloat. That is the reality that too many in this House are oblivious to. People are not living; they are surviving.

Imagine what people think when they see Members of Parliament earning hundreds of thousands of pounds on top of an already excellent MP’s salary. Most workers cannot earn tens of thousands of pounds for a few hours’ work, yet that is exactly what this House permits. People are sick of Parliament being treated like a marketplace, sick of influence following money, sick of politicians speaking the language of working people while living by rules that working people could never access. That is not public service; it is grift. We have seen declarations of hundreds of thousands of pounds in outside earnings. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), claims to stand with left behind communities while accepting a reported £5 million gift from a crypto donor in an industry he is campaigning to liberalise and deregulate. That is not anti establishment—it is the establishment. It is money privilege wearing a different badge, and people can see that.

It is not just the hon. Member for Clacton. Across this house there are Members, including some who represent the poorest communities in Britain, who have chosen to follow the same path. They use public office to pursue private financial gain. That is exactly the culture that the public have lost faith in. In Clacton and in Liverpool, people know the difference between graft and grift. Graft is the cleaner starting before dawn, the care worker finishing another double shift, the warehouse worker waiting to find out whether they have enough hours in the week, the nurse staying because the ward is short staffed, the mum going without so her children can eat and the dad skipping meals so the lights stay on. That is graft, not grift.

Every time money buys excess, democracy is weakened. The mere fact that people are asking, “Who are they working for?” should really shame this House. When somebody writes to their MP, it is usually because they are desperate. They need help: they need advocacy, pensions, HM Revenue and Customs or child maintenance service; they are disabled, they are ill or they are struggling to navigate an inhumane benefits system. They deserve to know that their Member’s attention belongs to them—not to a corporate boardroom or a private client, but to them as individuals.

This job is a privilege and a vocation; it is not an entitlement, and it is certainly not a commercial opportunity. Let us finish the job. Let us ban second paid jobs, with only genuinely exceptional public interest exemptions, strengthen transparency and enforce the rules: no loopholes, no excuses and no more cashing in on public office. This debate comes down to one simple question. Whose side are we on—the side of the people who graft, work hard, pay their taxes and expect integrity from those they elect, or the side who treat public office as a route to private wealth? I know where I stand. I stand shoulder to shoulder with the people who graft, not the people who grift. Public office is a privilege, not a business opportunity. This House belongs to the public. We are sent here for one reason and one reason only: to serve our constituents who put us in this place—nothing more, nothing less.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for the campaigning work he has done over many years on this important issue. As Members of Parliament, we are privileged to be here, but this is a demanding, full time role. Our time, energy and focus should be dedicated to representing our constituents, and to that alone; but, as we have already heard, it is all too common for Members to have multiple jobs, often serving corporate interests despite the obvious potential for a conflict of interest.

Every MP earns at least £98,599 a year, with Ministers and Select Committee Chairs earning even more. That is more than two and a half times the average wage, and almost 20 times the annual equivalent of the basic universal credit allowance. Before my election in 2024, my salary as a teacher, a head of curriculum area and a member of the extended senior leadership team at my school was less than half an MP’s salary. It is difficult to argue that Members need second, third or even 16th jobs while many of our constituents struggle to make basic ends meet. Members being hired as advisers or consultants, primarily because of their political connections and access, is not only wrong and out of touch; it poses a genuine risk to public confidence in our democracy and, as we saw from the Tory lobbying scandal during covid, a genuine risk to public health.

The reality gap between claiming to represent ordinary working class people and earning vast sums through private income streams is stark. It is best illustrated by, though by no means limited to, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I did contact him, Mr Western—who has declared more than £2 million in earnings since his election to this House in July 2024 from media contracts, paid Cameo appearances and serving as a brand ambassador for a gold dealer. That would be laughable if it were not so concerning.

I support a ban on second jobs for Members of Parliament, with sensible exemptions where work is necessary to maintain professional qualifications and skills in the public interest—as teachers, doctors or nurses, for example. This is a necessary step towards restoring trust and integrity in our political system. The privilege of serving as a Member of Parliament should come with a singular commitment: serving the public, and serving them alone. Diolch yn fawr.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western, and I really congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this important and very timely debate, which he opened very well.

Being a Member of Parliament for my constituents in Hazel Grove is an enormous privilege, but it goes beyond that; it is a full time job, with knobs on. I must declare that early in my time here, I was also an elected councillor, representing the wonderful people of Bredbury Green and Romiley. That was classed as a second job under our current rules, so I declared the allowance that I received for the couple of months before I stood down as a councillor, and the details can be seen in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The people who voted us here did not do so just so we can use Parliament as a launchpad into a media career, a consultancy or corporate boardroom; voters send us here to work for them. Yet in this Parliament we have seen some Members treat their responsibilities to their constituents as, at best, a part time concern. Other Members have already given the detail of some of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I have indeed let the hon. Member know in advance, Mr Weston, that I planned to mention him and his grifting.

The hon. Member for Clacton has been here for 300 sitting days since those of us in the 2024 intake were elected. When I was preparing this speech, I realised that if I added together the hours that he has declared as having worked elsewhere, he has spent more than 140 days on various other jobs since he was first elected. That might be understandable if, like many other Members, he had spent the time when he is not here on constituency work, or on fighting for those who elected him. However, there were reports in the Daily Mirror earlier this year flagging up how many of his constituents felt that he was not around enough. He has spent hundreds of hours presenting on GB News and taking speaking fees for cryptocurrency platforms such as Blockworks.

Order. Can I just remind Members about their choice of language? It is okay to use certain vocabulary in general—in non specific terms—but when they are speaking about particular Members, I ask Members to be very careful about the use of language such as “grifting”.

I welcome your advice and guidance, Chair.

I will move on to talk about those Members who receive payments for posting on social media. Members of the UK Parliament should not receive payments from platforms such as X. I also note the entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe)—I have also advised him that I will mention him in this debate. The details of his most recent donation show that he has received over £70,000 from X since his election to this place.

Given the international nature of social media companies’ revenue streams, the role that Elon Musk has attempted to play in US politics and the views that he has increasingly expressed about UK politics, we should ensure that there are limitations in place to prevent potential income from social media platforms from unduly influencing politicians. We know the way that the algorithms that these platforms use push content that evokes more feeling, because it drives engagement. Therefore, the more divisive and hate filled the content, the more some of the algorithms allow it to be seen. I have tabled some amendments to the Representation of the People Bill that would address that issue and I would really welcome Government support for them.

It is also worth noting the number of times that various Members who have already been mentioned today have spoken in this place in their role as an MP. For the hon. Member for Clacton, it is fewer than 50 times in two years, including points of order and supplementary questions—considerably fewer than any other party leader.

As others have already mentioned today, some MPs have a second job related to a previous career. Within these walls, there are people with vastly different career backgrounds, from veterinarians to police officers. There is a vast difference between being an MP who maintains a medical licence, continues to practise at the Bar or keeps up their professional registration in nursing or social work, and being an MP who treats this Chamber as little more than a platform for personal enrichment. We should be honest about that difference, because members of the public already are.

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.

However, the people of Hazel Grove did not elect me to pop in here occasionally while moonlighting for a string of corporate sponsors. Many of my constituents rightly expect high standards and some of them have raised concerns about the conduct of politicians. Most recently, Neil from Hazel Grove wrote to me about reports of a £5 million gift to an MP from a foreign based billionaire. My constituents elected me to do things such as fighting for Stepping Hill Hospital to get its £138 million repair bill sorted, pressing for better rail services, and holding this Government—any Government—to account. That is what every MP should be doing for the people from their patch.

We saw scandal after scandal under the last Conservative Government, from the resignation of Owen Paterson to partygate. Public trust in politics has been corroded, and as a country we are still paying the price for that failure. Although there are currently some restrictions in place, they do not go far enough—for example, MPs are strictly banned from acting as parliamentary strategists, advisers or consultants, That clearly recognises that having a second job can contradict our role as MPs, but it is not a full solution. The Liberal Democrats have long supported broader reform to the rules for MPs’ conduct. We should not end up in a situation where MPs are marking their own homework.

I welcome the aims of the Modernisation Committee, but it was established almost two years ago. Indeed, I made my maiden speech in a debate on the motion that established it, yet the Government have so far failed to deliver the modernisation that is sorely needed, including in relation to second jobs. I welcome any update from the Minister on when we might expect some progress.

Those who sit in this House of Commons must remember that we are representatives for our areas and our constituents. This is not a part time role, and that is the standard that this House should expect of everyone who sits in it.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing this debate. This is a vital discussion that goes to the very heart of how our democracy functions, how our legislature connects with the public and how we maintain institutional integrity. Although we disagree with the prescription of a blanket ban, I certainly respect the sincerity with which the argument has been put forward. We all share the fundamental goal of protecting and restoring public trust in this House.

There is no question that public support for MPs having second jobs has reduced drastically over recent years. 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. If we are considering a ban on second jobs, however, we ought to be clear as to why. Some have argued in this debate that the issue is the time spent on outside jobs, and that the time ought to be directed entirely to MPs’ parliamentary constituency work.

I do not have an outside job, but before the general election I served as a Government Whip. It was a paid position, and it almost certainly took up more of the time that I was in Westminster each week than any outside job would. While those in Government posts—or for that matter House roles, such as Chairs of Select Committees—do necessary work for the proper functioning of Government and Parliament, I would struggle to argue that my constituents benefited directly from me having that additional job.

The same would be even more true for many ministerial positions, but most Ministers of all parties are able to fulfil those demanding roles without their responsibilities as constituency MPs suffering. If we accept that a Minister can balance the immense, exhausting weight of working in a Government Department with their duty to the electorate, it is logically inconsistent to argue that a Back Bencher cannot do the same with a few hours a week of external professional practice.

If the primary problem is not the time diverted from representing constituents, perhaps it is the money. But if we go down that route, there is a danger of us getting drawn into an argument over good jobs versus bad jobs. Few people would complain about the shadow Minister for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), continuing to work as a consultant paediatrician; I informed her in advance that I would mention her.

It is necessary for my hon. Friend to continue to work so that she can maintain her professional qualification, and it adds immense real world value to her shadow ministerial role. She also properly declares her interests during relevant debates. Similarly, Members across the House have often been rightly congratulated on their ongoing work as surgeons, GPs and nurses, but these medical jobs are no less time consuming and, in some cases, may be better remunerated than some of the other interests that are more often the focus.

Does the shadow Minister recognise that this is not necessarily about the amount of remuneration, but the risk of corruption and the types of employment that have been mentioned by many Members in this debate?

I thank the hon. Member for making the point that I was about to move on to.

Some of the jobs that I have mentioned are better remunerated, so it is incredibly difficult to know where a formal line should be drawn in explicit rules. If medical jobs are acceptable, why not the legal work that some Members have legally and properly been paid to do as Back Bench MPs? If paid newspaper columns are allowed, which the Government’s current plans notably exempt, it becomes much harder to explain to the public why work advising a manufacturing business on global supply chains is completely unacceptable.

The point that the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) rightly made was that we must differentiate between work and influence. The real threat to public confidence has never been an MP spending a few hours a week doing genuine practical work in business, law or the media. The threat is and always has been paid advocacy and lobbying, which is why the rules were fundamentally overhauled. We have an absolute ban on paid advocacy and an explicit prohibition on MPs acting as paid parliamentary strategists, consultants or advisers. In July 2024, the new Opposition gladly supported the removal of exemptions regarding public policy advice.

The shadow Minister is making an important point about the distinction between outside employment and paid advocacy. Could he expand on what seems to be his view that Members of this House should be treated differently from serving members of the armed forces, members of the judiciary, civil servants and other public servants for whom there are restrictions on taking outside commercial jobs in addition to their core role? What does he think is different about Members of Parliament?

Fundamentally, I think it comes down to the employment relationship. Obviously, as Members of Parliament, we are elected to represent constituents. It is then a question of judgment as to what activities conflict with that and prevent us doing that role as well as we need to. I think most people would agree that some of the cases highlighted today cross that line, but the question is whether a blanket ban is the most effective and proportionate way of dealing with what is clearly a genuine problem.

The independent Committee on Standards launched a comprehensive inquiry on the issue in January 2025 to look at the exact benefits, risks and regulatory effectiveness of outside employment. That inquiry is still under way, so it would seem the height of legislative impatience if we were to go down the road of threatening blanket bans while that independent review is still gathering evidence on how a more balanced approach could operate.

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.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I want to reassure you before I begin that I have notified the Members I will be mentioning today.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for a really important debate and for his long standing, committed and passionate campaigning on such an important issue. I look forward to seeing his Bill. The time for these changes has come—a time that is long overdue. I also thank hon. Members for their contributions to today’s important and timely debate.

The Government were elected on a manifesto that committed to returning to a politics of service—something that we have heard a lot about from many hon. Members today. We want to ensure that public office holders are held to the highest standards, as the public rightly expect. Hon. Members remember the damage caused by scandal after scandal in the last Parliament, including the lobbying scandals of Matt Hancock, Owen Paterson and Scott Benton, which undermined the trust that people place in us to lead by example.

On top of our commitment to further tighten the rules on second jobs, I am really proud of the work that the Labour Government have undertaken so far. As per our manifesto pledge, we have established the independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, which has an independent chair and an expanded and ambitious remit to promote the highest standards in public life. I thank its members for the dedicated work that they have already completed to strengthen standards in public life.

Let me turn to the topic of this important debate. Our manifesto also said: “The absence of rules on second jobs…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”— in the context of this debate, I stress that it will be urgent— “on the restrictions that need to be put in place to prevent MPs from taking up roles that stop them serving their constituents”.

We can be a bit frustrated at the pace of progress on the second part of that manifesto commitment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) described as glacial.

To put some urgency behind this, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), stated in February: “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.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 567.] The Government’s view is that MPs must prioritise their duty to Parliament and their constituents. The public would expect nothing less from us all. That is a very clear indication from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister that the Government’s view is that second jobs should be banned outside very limited exceptions.

I am pleased that, on taking office in 2024, we immediately instructed officials to work with House authorities on tightening the rules about MPs and second jobs, in line with our promises. Just a month after the 2024 election, we put a motion before the House that closed two loopholes, which had allowed MPs to provide paid parliamentary advice on public policy and current affairs, and advice in general terms on how Parliament works. Frankly, I was shocked that that was possible before we came to power. Those rules clearly did not meet the public’s expectations of what MPs should focus on during their time in Parliament.

Following that, the previous Leader of the House of Commons, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), as Chair of the Modernisation Committee, wrote to the Committee on Standards to invite it to consider whether MPs’ ability to hold outside interests should be further restricted. The Leader of the House of Commons has worked closely with the Committee since it started its inquiry. I thank the current Leader of the House and his predecessor for their diligent work in this space and the support they have offered to the House as the inquiry has proceeded. The Leader of the House wrote to the Committee again in June to set out the Government’s expectations.

It is right that the Committee on Standards is at the heart of looking at the future rules governing the behaviour of MPs, given its deep expertise and the proven ability for its members to work together on a cross party basis to promote high standards in public life. Again—I will come back to this later in my speech—I encourage it to heed the very clear words of the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, who said that second jobs should be banned “outside very limited exceptions”. We will urge it to increase the pace of its review.

As this debate has highlighted, there is some discussion about what constitutes a second job or outside interests, which can be varied. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) saw my jaw hit the desk when she talked about social media income—I had not seen that. It is absolutely astonishing that MPs can profit from clickbait and from driving hits and likes. The public can clearly see the contradiction and the conflict with representing constituents that could ensue from that, so I thank her for raising the issue.

Based on the letter that the Leader of the House sent to the Committee on Standards in June, I want to set out what the Government want to achieve and what we want the Committee to focus on. We believe that there are three core areas that need to be considered when determining whether an MP should be able to undertake an additional role: time, money and influence. I believe—and I hope all Members agree—that being an MP is an enormous privilege. I know from having lost and come back that nothing will ever eclipse the privilege that we get in this role; it is precious to all of us. It would not be right for the focus of anybody elected to this place to be diverted from delivering in the best interests of their constituents. The fact that it remains open to MPs to treat their parliamentary and constituency responsibilities as secondary to other work is outdated—Victorian, as others have said today. In the view of the Government, it has to change now.

How can it be right, for example, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has 16 jobs, as we have heard? Just yesterday it was revealed that he is paid £22,500 per hour. Let us think about that: he is paid £22,500 per hour, as a brand ambassador for gold trading. That blows my mind. The same Member has taken £2 million on top of his parliamentary salary. He receives £400,000 for presenting shows on GB News. Up until March of this year, he was filmed doing Cameo clips, including offering best wishes to a far right rioter and being paid to say, “Up the Ra!”

As of March 2026, he has spent the equivalent of 140 working days on his second job, according to Byline Times. I am not sure how anyone can see that as compatible with his obligations to the people of Clacton. Those are just the things we know about. Journalists uncovered a £5 million donation from a Thai crypto billionaire, which was not declared to Parliament.

I remind Members that direct criticism can be made only on a substantive motion. The particular language or assertion was perhaps not appropriate.

I appreciate the Chair’s reflection, thank you. I will simply say that it is nice for some Members of Parliament to see a safe and secure future, which I am sure many of our constituents would dearly love for themselves.

My concern about the examples I gave is not just that it diminishes the individual Member in the eyes of the public. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), the shadow Minster, said that the onus is on the public to make a judgment. I completely appreciate that; it is true that the public will make a judgment. Such actions, however, do not just diminish the individual Member of Parliament. They diminish this place and our democracy, and they do a great disservice not just to the people of Clacton but the people of Britain.

The Government believe there is a clear difference, as the shadow Minister mentioned, between a second job and a ministerial or parliamentary role, such as being the Chair of a Select Committee, not least because, in performing those roles, Members are accountable to Parliament and are acting on behalf of the House to scrutinise the work of Government. As I have said, the Government do not believe MPs should have a second job that poses a distraction from an MP’s primary duty to Parliament and constituents. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said they should not be able to compromise, which is a similar approach. It should not be a distraction or compromise an MP’s ability to do their duty. Put simply, being an MP is a full time job—more than a full time job, as many of us know. Members should spend their time doing the best possible job, representing their constituents who put their trust in them in the general election.

The second principle is that any earnings from a second job must not create the impression that the second job is the MP’s primary source of income. MPs should decide whether they are brand ambassadors for gold bullion or ambassadors for the people they represent.

Thirdly, 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.

I hope hon. Members across the House feel they can get behind those three reasonable tests and standards, and that they will reach out to the Committee on Standards to ensure their views are properly reflected in its considerations. I appreciate, as others have said, that we also have to be pragmatic and recognise that colleagues have had careers outside politics and many will need them again. The House is enriched by the experience of those roles—for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) mentioned as a nurse, in the NHS.

Individuals are required to maintain professional qualifications, which is why changes must include qualifying exemptions, so the House can retain the expertise brought to it by those with successful careers before they came to this place. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) that this cannot be a loophole that is exploited. It is also important that some professions are not more equal than others. Everybody ought to have the ability to have a successful career after they leave Parliament, but that cannot be used as an excuse to justify earning a second income that could be detrimental their role as an MP.

This Government were elected on a manifesto that promised to change how our politics is conducted and bring an end to the lobbying scandals that defined the previous Government’s time in office. We are committed to returning to a politics of service and to upholding the standards in public life that our constituents demand we maintain. This Government remain committed to the promise we made to the country at the last general election. I am proud that we implemented immediate changes to lobbying, but as we have heard today, there is so much more to be done. I welcome the ongoing work of the Modernisation Committee and look forward to the recommendations the Committee on Standards will make to the House.

However—I will say this carefully, deliberately and as clearly as I can, perhaps in the hope of catching the ear of the next Prime Minister—this Government have the ability to draft and propose legislation and a big majority in the House. As I mentioned, parliamentarians here today and the Government have both the power and, crucially, the responsibility to protect this place and the privilege of being MP, not just for ourselves, but for those who come after.

I very much look forward to seeing the Bill drafted my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East. I look forward to all of us using our collective voice and working with the Committees to sort this matter now, because it is long overdue. I thank hon. Members for taking part in this debate and for ensuring that their constituents’ views on this important issue have been heard in this place.

I thank every single Member of Parliament who has contributed to the debate and the Minister for her constructive and encouraging response. The message from the debate to the public is clear. Many of us understand and believe that when Members of Parliament chase corporate cash, they are not only short changing their constituents, but undermining our democracy. That is a very serious matter indeed. Trust and public confidence in politicians, Parliament and our democratic process has never been lower. We have a historic duty to turn that around. That means change. It means, among other things, banning the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs.

I look forward to passing the Minister a copy of the Bill I drafted back in 2022. It is a full, comprehensive plan. I also hope to speak to the next Prime Minister about that plan, because it could be part of a new era. It could be part of a fresh start to show that we are not all the same, that we defend our democracy and that we believe in public service and a better kind of politics. I thank every single Member who has contributed to the debate and you for chairing it, Mr Western.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of a prohibition of second jobs for hon. Members.

Sitting suspended.