MPs’ Second Jobs: Prohibition

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

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?

[Richard Burgon]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

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.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

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.