Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. As he will understand, I will not go into details on the Floor of the House as to our capabilities, but he will know that the involvement so far—for example, in relation to the attack in April—related to Israel’s self-defence, when missiles were raining in on Israel. That is the support that we did provide and would always be prepared to provide.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Today, as we remember all those killed in the 7 October Hamas attack and all those killed day after day in Israel’s war on Gaza and now Lebanon, the case for peace, the preservation of human life and the protection of human life has never been more urgent and compelling. An immediate ceasefire is desperately needed to stop all the killing, end the war crimes, free the hostages and get aid into Gaza. However, it is clear that Israel’s right-wing political leaders will keep rejecting ceasefires and keep violating international law without stronger international pressure. To get Israeli leaders to back a ceasefire, do we not need to see tougher action, including an end to all arms sales, as recent international court rulings demand?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree that we need an immediate ceasefire. That is what we are working for and what the US is leading on. I do not agree with a complete ban on arms sales. That would include a ban on arms being used for defensive purposes. Looking at the attack of only a few days ago by Iran, I think the House will understand my position on this and the position of many across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to hear about the new community diagnostics centre at my right hon. Friend’s local hospital. We are working tirelessly to reduce the overall NHS waiting list, which has come down by around 200,000 since September last year. That is an achievement in light of the pressures from industrial action, but she is right: there is more to do. Our productivity plan will free up clinicians to spend more time with patients and, to her point, our long-term plan for the NHS will ensure that we train more doctors and more nurses to meet the workforce requirements of the NHS for the future.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q2. Thirty thousand Palestinian deaths are not enough to move this Prime Minister to end arms sales to Israel. The killing of British aid workers is not enough to move the Prime Minister to end arms sales. It even seems that an all-out assault on Rafah, with all the death and destruction that would entail, would not be enough for him, unlike the US, so just what on earth would be enough finally to move this Prime Minister into the same position as the majority of the British public and end arms sales to Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike the US, the UK Government do not directly sell arms to Israel, and neither do the UK Government offer any military lethal aid packages to Israel, as the US does. He should not conflate these issues.

As part of the Government’s robust arms control regime, we regularly review advice to ensure compliance with international law, and Ministers act in accordance with that advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our position with regard to export licences is unchanged following the most recent assessment, and it is, indeed, in line with other partners, including the United States.

Iran-Israel Update

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I send my condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father, who will have been very proud of you.

This is a very dangerous moment. The UN Secretary-General rightly told the Security Council last night:

“Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.

Ordinary people in both Israel and Iran, and across the whole region and the wider world, will pay the price if this escalates. The Secretary-General also rightly reiterated the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, as the Security Council voted for, given the huge loss of life there. This is the first opportunity that we have had to question the Prime Minister since the recent killing of British nationals in Gaza. Is he planning to appoint an independent adviser to scrutinise the Israeli inquiry into those deaths of British nationals, similar to what Australia has done?

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after that incident to express our very strong concerns about what happened. We are carefully reviewing the initial findings of Israel’s investigations into the killing of the aid workers, and welcome the suspension of two officers as a first step. The findings must be published and followed up with an independent review to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the economic impact of attacks on shipping on everyone here at home and across the world. There is a meaningful economic cost to container ships rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope. That is an important reason why we must have freedom of navigation and it demonstrates why it is right that we take action. Prosperity Guardian is the operation providing more maritime security in the area.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

To follow up on the Prime Minister’s comments on Gaza, 25,000 people have now been killed there, so is it not time that our Government did more than express sympathies and instead used their diplomatic power to prevent more deaths there, starting with a UN Security Council motion calling for an immediate ceasefire and ending arms sales to Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

Our actions are clear: we have trebled our aid commitment this year, we are doing everything we can to open more crossings, and recently we worked to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza, with 750 tonnes of lifesaving food and aid arriving on its first delivery. We can be proud of the impact that we are having, but of course, there is more to do, and that is why we will continue to have those conversations to get more aid in.

Protecting Steel in the UK

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am not ignoring that investment; I am making the case that it is a bad deal and that there is a better deal for the resources available that would satisfy far more of our objectives and give a better future to Port Talbot.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I grew up, like the shadow Minister, in a region ripped apart by the economic vandalism of Thatcher. Is it not the case that the Tories are repeating the mistakes of the past and claiming there is no alternative, when the reality is that steel jobs can not only be saved, but even created, with a proper plan that takes advantage of the global demand for steel—especially low-carbon, green steel—which is going up fast?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with that case. That is why this is such an important issue for Parliament to consider. I always acknowledge that there are parts of it that are difficult. Decarbonising industry is an urgent priority, but in some cases the technology is uncertain or expensive. It is my contention, however, that getting it right is more important than doing it quickly or necessarily at the cheapest cost. To state the obvious, we can decarbonise anything by shutting it down. The cheapest path will likely always involve outsourcing most of our industrial production to other places. If we do that—it is the Government’s plan for Port Talbot—we will spend millions of pounds, and we will see huge job losses and global emissions rise as we effectively offshore our emissions and then claim that is progress. That would be a fundamental political mistake with potentially enormous ramifications for the future of the transition to net zero. We should know that from our own past.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, when I was a child growing up in the north-east in the 1980s, there was a major transition. We saw the end of coalmining and shipbuilding and the old nationalised industries as we knew them then. Many colleagues across the UK have similar personal experiences. Nobody today would propose that the UK should have an economic or energy policy based around large-scale coalmining, but how we manage the transition is fundamental. In the past, as a country, we have got that wrong. Levelling up—supposedly the Government’s flagship policy—is surely a recognition that the scars of those years and the impact of deindustrialisation are still felt in many parts of the UK today, yet the Government risk making exactly the same mistakes all over again.

The decision of this Conservative Government to hand over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant is quite simply a bad deal. It is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for taxpayers and a bad deal for the future of our industrial sovereign capability. Worse than that, it sends a message that decarbonisation effectively means deindustrialisation. I put it to Conservative colleagues that if net zero becomes a zero-sum game for working people, that risks the very support that we need to achieve the transition. There must be public consent for the transition, and that requires our economy to benefit from better jobs and better opportunities. This is the real politics of getting net zero right: it is not imaginary meat taxes or made-up claims about seven bins but whether the transition is just and fair and delivers something for Britain’s workers. The Government’s plans so far are simply none of those things.

The race to decarbonise is a race for jobs and prosperity, and this could be a hugely significant time for steel. As the Minister knows, I have many criticisms of Government policy, and I believe that we have weak business investment, weak productivity and weak growth as a result. I recognise that the Port Talbot site is in a challenging financial position, but the Government have already recognised that uncompetitive energy prices need tackling. We have procurement rules in place that are seeing significant steel content from the UK in infrastructure projects, and we are getting close to carbon border adjustment mechanisms both here and in the EU, which will be a major development. CBAMs in particular will likely completely change the economics of the UK steel industry. There is no reason to believe that the UK cannot have a vibrant steel sector, so to make this irreversible decision now, when the policy background is clearly improving, seems odd indeed. Better options are on the table; anyone claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

When it comes to Port Talbot, there is a specific alternative proposal available—the multi-union Syndex plan—which is not far off Tata’s original proposals, which were known as Project Kronus. Other proposals have also been put forward. All we ask is that the Government consider the issues involved and do not make any fundamental decisions that are irreversible.

It is widely accepted at Port Talbot that blast furnace No. 5 is at the end of its life and may need to close, but blast furnace No. 4 will not need to be relined until 2032. For the Government to force that furnace to close now, as we await the arrival of new technologies, is an act of economic vandalism. We acknowledge that electric arc furnaces are part of the answer, but we do not want to put all our eggs in one basket, which means being open to all technologies, and especially direct iron reduction, which is one of the most exciting possibilities.

The counter-arguments put forward so far are not robust. I believe that safety issues could be managed in the same way that they are every day at a major steelworks. The claim that 90% of what Port Talbot does could be met with an electric arc furnace does not stand up, as key products in packaging and automotive materials cannot be produced in one. At Scunthorpe, I understand that the lack of sufficient grid connections and the cancellation of the first carbon capture programme back in 2010 have severely limited the options available. Again, I ask the Government not to make irreversible decisions, to be open to all technologies and to recognise the growing importance of and demand for steel.

We are not the only country with these challenges, but everywhere we look, other countries are doing it better. Take the Netherlands, where Tata is in negotiations with the Government on DRI technology; Sweden, with the collaboration between SSAB, Vattenfall and LKAB; Canada, where ArcelorMittal signed an agreement some time ago to build a new green steel plant; or the news just in of a $5 billion investment in a new green steel plant in Saudi Arabia. Everywhere we look, other countries are seeing growth and investment in their steel sector, but we are seeing the opposite. I put the question to Ministers: why is the UK pursuing this path alone?

At Business and Trade oral questions, the Minister has been asked repeatedly—mostly by Government Members—about the assessment the Government have made of becoming the only major economy without primary domestic steel production. Her answers hint that she might get it, but the Government have ploughed on regardless. I ask her again: how can any Government possibly justify making thousands of workers redundant in the name of cutting our carbon footprint only to pay to ship in more carbon-intensive steel from halfway across the world?

It does not have to be this way. We cannot afford to blow this opportunity, repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and leave regional inequality entrenched—we can still see those scars. That is why I always say that, under Labour, decarbonisation will never mean deindustrialisation. I want green steel, and I believe that the workforce are our greatest asset in delivering that. Any real plan for green steel must cover the whole industry. It must be open to all technology that is available, and it should fundamentally be a story of new jobs, new opportunities, new exports and renewed British economic strength, rather than outsourcing our emissions and pretending that that is progress.

Defending the UK and Allies

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have addressed that previously. With regard to South Africa’s referral of Israel to the ICJ, that development is unhelpful. We do not agree with it and I do not believe it is right. As we have previously stated, Israel has a right to take action in self-defence against Hamas. It is important that it does that in accordance with international humanitarian law, and we will continue to make that point to it.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We are now in a very dangerous moment, when the war in Gaza risks spreading into a much wider and even more deadly war across the middle east. There is a real risk that our country will find itself in yet another war in the middle east that it cannot get out of easily. To avoid any wider war, do we not now need an emphasis on de-escalation and diplomatic efforts? Does the need to seek such a wider diplomatic solution not make it more urgent to be pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, no one wants to see the conflict in Gaza go on a moment longer than is necessary. We support a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire that will last. That means Hamas no longer in power in Gaza and no longer able to threaten Israel with rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism. Hamas simply do not represent the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations.

Israel and Gaza

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that people act in accordance with international law, that those procedures are followed and, indeed, that Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming civilians. In the meantime, we will ensure that we get humanitarian support into the region. Those efforts are starting to bear fruit, but we must double our efforts.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The horrific death toll of this crisis now includes 1,800 Palestinian children. More children will die while the bombs are dropping. The aid needed will not get through. The United Nations Secretary-General is calling for a ceasefire; so is the EU foreign policy chief and so are France, Spain, Japan and Brazil. We need more than just expressions of regret about the loss of civilian lives; we need action to stop it. Is it not time to back a ceasefire, binding on all sides?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is a mischaracterisation of some of what some of those countries have said. I spoke to the President of France last night and also leaders from the US, Canada, Italy and Germany. We are united in supporting Israel’s right to self-defence, acting in accordance with international law, and committed to getting humanitarian aid into the region, as we are now doing.

Israel and Gaza

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his powerful statement and also agree with him, We must think about the future, and in spite of this awful tragedy, we cannot lose sight of the better future that we all want to strive for. Indeed, in my conversations with leaders we have already been thinking about that, and it is something I raised with the Prime Minister of Israel as well. We all want that better future for the Israeli and Palestinian people, and hopefully out of this tragedy we will find a way to move closer towards it.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The massacre of Israeli civilians was a heinous act of terrorism that we all utterly condemn and the hostages must be released immediately. In the words of the United Nations Secretary-General,

“the horrific acts by Hamas do not justify responding with collective punishment of the Palestinian people.”

But that is what we are seeing in Gaza, with civilian areas bombed and food, electricity, water and medicines all cut off. Such collective punishment is a war crime under the Geneva conventions, so will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to make it clear to the Israeli Government that this collective punishment of Palestinian civilians must end immediately?

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure value for money in public spending.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Ind)]

10. What recent steps he has taken with Cabinet colleagues to help ensure value for money in public spending.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

The Government continue to deliver on our commitment to get maximum value for taxpayers’ money in public spending. The Cabinet Office is one of the engines of efficiency in government. In the most recent financial year for which we have the data, the Cabinet Office, working with colleagues across Whitehall and the cross-Government functions, saved the British taxpayer £3.4 billion, a record we are proud of.

[Richard Burgon]

It is not just the lies by the former Prime Minister that have damaged trust in our politics; the contracts handed out to Tory friends and donors through VIP lanes did great damage too, yet the Government last week voted down attempts to shut down VIP lanes for good. No doubt Tory donors are rubbing their hands with glee, but with polls showing three quarters of the public are worried about corruption in Government, does the Minister not agree that the refusal to shut down VIP lanes for good will simply add to these grave concerns?

[Alex Burghart]

Last week we debated the Procurement Bill. I was very sorry not to see the hon. Gentleman in his place at the time, but if he had been present on that day he would have heard us say that the Bill prevents VIP lanes.

MPs and Second Jobs

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I have secured this debate to consider the urgent need to put an end to the ongoing scandal of MPs using their positions to enrich themselves through second jobs.

Being a Member of Parliament is a privilege. It is a well-paid job, and it is also a full-time job, so when MPs chase corporate cash, they are actually short-changing the public who pay them. That is why I introduced the Members of Parliament (Prohibition of Second Jobs) (Motion) Bill, which would ban MPs from having second jobs. I introduced that Bill soon after the issue of MPs’ second jobs shot to prominence through the Owen Paterson lobbying scandal. That case became a lightning rod for public anger not just about corporate lobbying, but about the wider dodgy deals and crony contracts that the Government were mired in.

That scandal should have been the moment when the Government cleaned the stables and took real action to prevent the corrosive influence of MPs’ second jobs. Has the problem gone away more than a year since that scandal came to light? No. In fact, it has only got worse. There has been the illusion of action so that the Government could draw a line under the issue, but an investigation by The Observer found that, one year after the Owen Paterson scandal, MPs were earning more than ever from second jobs. When scandals happen and real action is promised, what message does it send to the public if the problem is instead allowed to get worse?

The latest figures, from January, show that MPs have earned more than £17 million on top of their salaries since the last general election, and that Conservative MPs have taken nearly 90% of it. Around two thirds of that money went to just 20 MPs, of whom 17 were Conservative Members. I invited the top 10 highest outside earners to intervene in the debate because I wanted to give them the chance to defend the right of MPs to continue raking it in from outside earnings. It appears none of them has taken me up on my offer, which is a shame.

I am disappointed that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), is not here today. Under his Government, the Tories repeatedly blocked my Bill banning second jobs. Time after time, his Government blocked any meaningful action against second jobs, and no wonder—the former Prime Minister is now the highest earning MP, having made nearly £5 million in outside earnings since leaving Downing Street last September. It would take the average nurse around 150 years to make what the former Prime Minister has made in just six months, and it is 50 times more than his MP’s salary.

Those who earn more from their outside earnings than they do as MPs all too often seem to view being an MP as their second job. Over the last year, as I have pushed my Bill in this House, I have heard some truly laughable attempts to justify MPs chasing corporate cash. Government Members used to tell me that my Bill would deprive our Parliament of the real world experience provided by second jobs, which bring us closer to people out there. Isn’t it funny how the Government Members who justify the racket of second jobs never choose to work for low wages in supermarkets, as bus drivers or in care homes—jobs done by millions of people who we are here to represent?

Instead, we have examples such as the former Chancellor and Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who earned £1,500 an hour advising a US investment bank. These are not the jobs or experiences of most people. Big money second jobs like that do not make MPs more in touch with the real world. They do the exact opposite, adding to the sense of an out-of-touch political class that, I am afraid, is increasingly held in contempt by the public. We have even had Conservative MPs claiming:

“There’s no way I could be an MP without my outside interests. My wife works full time, I’ve got kids and need the money for childcare.”

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He has ascribed a quotation to a Conservative MP. Would he mind saying who it came from, so that we know it is not just a vague assertion or a hypothetical Conservative MP?

[Richard Burgon]

I believe that it was provided anonymously to the press when this Conservative MP was pleading poverty on £84,000 a year but did not want their constituents to know they were doing so. The Minister is mistaken if he thinks that that quote is somehow unrepresentative of an attitude.

How on earth do these people think that the rest of the population, who are earning way below £84,000 a year, cope? These are the same MPs, by the way, who are all too happy to vote through swingeing cuts to benefits and to suppress the wages of workers who earn far less than they do.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

The former PM earned £5 million while remaining an MP, and MPs have raked in £17 million from second jobs since the last election. Does my hon. Friend agree that their time would be better spent in their constituencies, looking after their constituents and dealing with the cost of living crisis that we are in?

[Richard Burgon]

My hon. Friend is correct. It is even worse that this racket is taking place during a cost of living crisis, when we have seen a proliferation of food banks—we see Tory MPs raking it in while some Tory MPs even deny the need for food banks.

Many MPs seem to fail to understand that they already earn more than 95% of the public. If they do not get how well paid they are compared with the rest of the public, or if they are not happy with their salary, perhaps they are in the wrong job. Given that our job is to represent the people, perhaps our democracy would be better served by MPs who better reflect 95% of people in this country. Having MPs who are seen to be using their position not to serve the public, but to fill their own pockets is fuelling a lack of trust in our political system. People raise important questions about who MPs are there to serve: they rightly ask whether, if an MP is getting paid tens of thousands of pounds, that MP can really claim to be representing the public and not their other employer.

Despite what many may tell themselves, the truth is that MPs are being paid not for what they know, but for who they know. They would not get those vast sums from big corporations if they were not MPs with political connections, which creates obvious conflicts of interests. MPs’ second jobs are an especial danger to our democracy, given that trust in politicians is already at the lowest level on record. Two in three people now see politicians as merely out for themselves, while just one in 20 people think that politicians are in the job primarily to serve the public good. More than 60% of the public think that if an MP is being paid to do another job, that prevents them from being independent and able to make the right decisions as an MP. Banning second jobs is one way in which the Government can prove to the public that MPs are not just in it for themselves, and that they really are making decisions based only on what they believe is best for the people of this country. The majority of people in this country want a ban on MPs earning money from second jobs, and only a tiny minority—just 19%—support MPs’ second jobs. MPs need to wake up to the reality of that public feeling and public opinion.

So what is the way forward? My Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs could be an important first step in the long road towards a more transparent and healthy democracy. My Bill is clear and bold: no paid second jobs for MPs at all, except in very limited circumstances.

[Alex Burghart]

Could the hon. Gentleman set out what those exceptions would be? I am afraid that I cannot remember from his Bill.

[Richard Burgon]

I will set out the exceptions that my Bill outlines. I am disappointed that the Minister does not know the detail of my Bill, since his Government repeatedly blocked it. I thought they must have read it very carefully in order to repeatedly block its passage through Parliament.

My Bill adds a new punishment for breaking second jobs rules: a fine at least equal to the amount paid to the offending Member for their second job, removing any financial gain from breaking the rules. That is in addition to existing sanctions that the Standards Committee can recommend, which include suspension. Some will argue that my Bill is very tough—indeed it is, because it has to be. We need to cut the rot out of our politics. The very limited exemptions I have included are when a second job is about maintaining professional qualifications, such as in nursing, or when a Member is working on the frontline in our NHS—as a doctor, for example—or in another emergency service. Those roles are about genuine public service and public interest, and have nothing to do with the scandal that has been shaking Parliament and sowing such distrust in politicians.

Some MPs have asked me how my Bill would impact on ministerial or Select Committee roles. Of course, it would not do so, because those additional roles are a key part of our democratic functioning in which we are trying to rebuild trust. My Bill would also allow MPs to carry out certain paid work, such as media appearances or speeches, if that entire outside earning is donated to charity. That way, we can be sure that those activities are about public service, not private enrichment.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Hillingdon Council, within which the Uxbridge constituency is contained, is going through one of the most massive cutbacks of its voluntary sector at the moment, including the local autistic group, Samaritans and others. Would it not be really helpful if the £5 million that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) earned was donated to those charities?

[Richard Burgon]

My right hon. Friend makes a fantastic suggestion. Why does the former Prime Minister not donate that £5 million to these important causes in his constituency? Let us invite him to do so and see what he does.

To conclude, banning second jobs for MPs is an important step to restoring the integrity of our democracy. No one can serve two masters, and MPs’ priority must be their constituents. I am afraid that the time for half measures and empty promises on this issue has long passed. The Labour party has proposed a ban on second jobs for MPs, with exemptions for public services similar to those in my Bill. I will be proud to join my colleagues in voting through that ban if, as gladly appears likely, we are voted into power at the next general election. An election could be up to 18 months away, however, and there is no justification for allowing this scandal to carry on a moment longer. There is nothing stopping the Government from taking action to stop the rot now.

The people out there believe that MPs’ second jobs have to go, and no amount of clever wording, sophistry and non-representative examples can change that reality. The people—the public—rightly believe that MPs should be committed to public service, not personal gain. Each delay in action further damages trust and exposes the integrity of our democracy to yet more scandals in future. It is time to end the gravy train of MPs’ second jobs.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) on securing the debate. It is a pleasure to be in an Adjournment debate with him again; I sometimes think that only he and I care about these issues—and the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), of course. I enjoyed listening to his speech and I know that his views come from a well thought out and sincere position; I reassure him that the Government’s do too. We recently considered many of the issues that have been raised—he will have been present in those debates.

We firmly believe, as the hon. Gentleman does, that an MP’s primary job is to serve their constituents. It is at the will of our constituents that we all sit here and without their support, we are nothing. We on the Conservative Benches also appreciate that the issue of outside or additional earnings is complex, and it has been considered by the Standards Committee, as he will be aware. That is why we have continued to support the clarification and improvement of the rules in the code of conduct to ensure that Members’ interests are properly declared and that the ban on paid advocacy and lobbying is strengthened, as was decided by the House in December 2022.

At that time, the question was raised about whether work undertaken outside should be limited. We believe that the responsibility for considering what constitutes a reasonable limit is a matter for individual Members; or to put it another way, it is a matter for their constituents. As I have said, ultimately, it is our constituents to whom we must answer—not to the hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, the Government or even the House of Commons. That is why the Government came to the view that we would support the work that has been undertaken to introduce robust new measures to strengthen the standards system in Parliament and to ensure that the rules prohibit Members from using their parliamentary role to benefit private interests rather than their constituents’ interests.

We remain of the view that, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in 2018, Members should be banned from accepting any paid work to provide services as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant. That is why the Government brought forward an amendment, which the House approved on 17 November 2021, to support the introduction of limits on Members undertaking outside work. These were that MPs should be prohibited from any paid work to provide services, as I have said, as a parliamentary strategist, adviser or consultant, and that outside work should be undertaken only within reasonable limits. The Government believe that an outright ban on second jobs is unnecessary as a consequence, as the rules in the code of conduct effectively address concerns about paid advocacy and emphasise the duty of MPs to properly serve their constituents and represent their interests in Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of good points, and he made a valid argument which, if he will forgive me, I will paraphrase. It was that it is a privilege to be here, and Members should not be spending their time on issues that are not associated with their constituents’ needs and should not be allowed to earn large sums of money by doing other things. One day, there might be a Labour Government—God help us—and when that happens, there is a chance that he might be sitting on this Front Bench, and at that point he will have a second job. Even though he would not ban that under his Bill, if his argument is about time, I point out that there is no second job or outside interest that could possibly compete with the amount of time that a Minister is expected to spend on their job, as he will see if ever he sits on the Treasury Bench. I confess that being a Minister reduces the amount of time Members have to spend on the needs of our constituents; it really does. We do it—it is an honour, a privilege and a pleasure—but it would be a lie to say that Members have as much time to spend on their constituency work when they are a Minister as they do when they are a Back Bencher. So the argument on time does not stand up on its own.

On the argument about money, the hon. Gentleman made it clear that he finds the fact that some Members of this House earn a great deal of money unpalatable and unsavoury, and he is entitled to those views. However, it is not for him to decide whether that should rule out such a person from being an MP. The people who get to decide that are not him or even the Government; those who should have the final say on whether such a person is an MP are their voters. Deep down, he knows that too, because I know that he is a democrat at heart, and he believes that sovereignty rests with the people. I do too, and I do not want to see a Government passing legislation that starts to make decisions for voters. Voters should have the final say: let them make their decisions.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for responding in such a serious and considered way on this issue. I get the impression that he will not be supporting my Bill to ban MPs’ second jobs. He refers to constituents and the public as sovereign, and I agree. What about this for an idea, then? If the Government are not prepared to ban second jobs, as I think they should, what about passing legislation to ensure that the outside earnings of every MP are listed under their name on the ballot paper at a general election? Constituents could then have a look and decide whether they want to vote for a person to carry on being their MP.

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman might find, if he did that, that people would be asking for a lot of other information to be published about Members at the ballot box. The public are perfectly capable and willing to find out about people they vote for, as he will know from knocking on doors. In my experience, voters are often very well informed and do not vote blindly. Consequently, although he says that the public support the thrust of his Bill, I put it to him that the public have also voted repeatedly over many years for Members with outside interests, when they have often had a choice not to do so. We should all respect their decision, because it is their decision.

The hon. Gentleman says that changing the law in this way would make this House more representative of people in the country. Often when I voted before I was a Member of this House, I did not vote for people like me. I made a choice to vote for the best candidate regardless of their background. Again, there are some things that are right for us to debate, but that are not right for us to decide. We must leave these decisions in the hands of the voters. Of course, such a system can only work when we have transparency, and it is transparency that this Government have supported and will continue to support.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts, and I hope he will forgive me for not being able to recall the particular exemptions that he set out in his Bill. I thank him for his interest in this subject, but I am afraid that we will have to agree to disagree.