The very thought of holding down a second job while I was a Member of Parliament was, frankly, laughable. Not only did it seem right to focus on the work I’d been elected to do, but the weekly 400-mile round trip between Westminster and the constituency was enough on its own to preclude any possibility of a time-consuming outside role. And yet many MPs had second jobs then, and many do so today. Interest in the subject has been piqued by new figures about the current House of Commons, as well as some minor rule changes – actual and proposed. But these could charitably be described as tinkering around the edges; a once-promised ban on MPs having second jobs has failed to materialise. Time, then, for a review of where we are, the direction of travel, and the rights and wrongs of our moonlighting Members.
The trend for MPs to earn income from second jobs shows no sign of diminishing. Analysis of the Register of Members’ Interests, published in April by The Guardian, showed 236 of our 650 MPs declared earnings from employment outside parliament in the eight months since the general election. Top of the table was Reform UK leader Nigel Farage. This continues a trend; last year his broad portfolio of work earned him the tabloid nickname ‘Nine-Job Nige‘, as well as income of around a million pounds. The analysis found that six MPs have spent on average eight hours each week – a full working day – doing second jobs. Another seven members had worked at least five hours a week on outside employment.
And all of this is totally within the rules.
It had once been the Labour Party’s position that it would ban MPs from having any outside work. But this was a commitment made from the comfort of opposition. It didn’t appear in the Party’s election manifesto, and in July 2024 the Commons agreed to a diluted proposal from the new government which only slightly tightened the existing rules. MPs were already banned from advocating an employer’s interests in parliament, or trying to influence ministers in a paid role. They also couldn’t work as a parliamentary strategist or consultant, but were permitted to give “advice on public policy and current affairs” as well as “advice in general terms about how Parliament works”. These exemptions – or loopholes, depending on your point of view – were removed under the new rules. But there was no further tightening, no doubt much to the relief of the more than one-third of MPs in the new House of Commons with second jobs.
How did we get here?
Well, historically, being a Member of Parliament was never regarded as a full-time or exclusive role. One took one’s seat in the Commons only occasionally, while continuing to be a barrister, banker, business person, gentleman farmer or lord of the manor. As the years have passed, the sitting hours have increased and the nature of the second jobs has changed, but the principle remains consistent. Conservative MP George Freeman (who, according to the latest analysis, worked an average of 11.5 hours a week in outside employment since 2024) has raised this very point. Freeman said, “Our parliament has always encouraged MPs with outside experience – whether as doctors, nurses, trade unionists or, in my case, helping UK science start-up ventures – rather than professional politicians”.
This ‘encouragement’ is clearly hard to resist: MPs who declared outside earnings in the first eight months of the current parliament worked a combined 32,000 hours in their second jobs. Not all should automatically face criticism, however. There’s a legitimate argument around the shaky job security of ‘just’ being an MP. As many discovered last July, the onset of unemployment can be swift and brutal, so having another string to one’s bow is an understandable safety net for many. Plus, as we’ll see later, the threshold for declaring outside income is relatively modest, so some of the 236 ‘second jobbers’ may actually be earning only a few hundred pounds. In other mitigation, a number of MPs will be obliged to continue practising in their previous professions to satisfy regulatory or licensing requirements, such as in law or medicine. There will also be ongoing roles or directorships in family concerns which were in situ before the member was elected – at least one current MP declares earnings from the family farm, for instance. And analysis by ITV News earlier this year showed 26 MPs were still also serving as local councillors, although that number will likely have decreased as some relinquished their council seats, one way or another, at the May elections.
It’s perhaps harder to justify some of the other outside roles, especially of the ‘consultant’, ‘business advisor’ or ‘brand ambassador’ variety. These at best raise questions about conflicts of interest, and at worst get us into potential ‘cash for questions’ territory. It must be said that most MPs with these sorts of jobs conduct themselves perfectly properly, but it’s all about ‘The Big P’: perception. Also increasingly problematic is the number of MPs earning money from media engagements, including some being paid as TV presenters and podcast hosts amid the rapid expansion of content-hungry and cash-rich digital outlets. Such work provides personal political advantage unavailable to opponents who lack the public profile or media contacts. The Labour government’s slight tightening of the rules has had little impact on the overall picture when it comes to these more questionable side hustles.
Proposals to restrict MPs’ second jobs have come and gone for decades. That trend continues. In January, parliament’s Modernisation Committee said it was considering further rule changes. Committee chair and Leader of the House Lucy Powell outlined three principles suggested by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner. These are that second jobs should not distract MPs from their parliamentary duties, should not pose a potential conflict of interest, and should not be offered simply because of their status as an MP. In launching the review, Powell highlighted that the primary concern is the potential reputational risk to the House due to perceived conflicts of interest or accusations of, as she put it, “gaming the system for their own personal gain”.
But the Modernisation Committee’s work, as commendable as it might be, risks adding to the somewhat confusing patchwork of regulation and oversight in this area. The House of Commons Code of Conduct is usually seen as the arbiter of such matters. But the most recent iteration, approved by parliament in December 2022, is more concerned with the proper declaration of interests than the provision of a detailed set of overall rules. The introductory paragraph of the Code’s ‘employment and earnings’ chapter simply says, “Members must register…payments received…for any employment outside the House once they have received a total of over £300 in payments from the same source in a calendar year”. Somewhat confusingly, Powell has admitted that any alterations introduced by her committee would “overlay” the existing Code rather than supplant it. Which, then, takes precedence? In addition, many individual parties have their own ad hoc rules by which their elected representatives are expected to abide. For example, SNP MPs are not allowed to be company directors, even though the House Code doesn’t forbid this. It’s a confusing picture, and it goes almost without saying that our constitution, such as it is, provides little meaningful assistance in this matter.
It is surely the case that there now needs to be a comprehensive review of the rules. Whatever is decided then needs to be clearly laid out so that MPs and, more importantly, the rest of us, can be sure what is expected of our elected representatives. No enduring argument has yet been made for MPs to be banned from having second jobs entirely. What seemed like a populist campaigning line before the election was soon diluted once the Labour government came to power. And whatever the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons may yet decide, it’s unlikely to involve a huge overhaul.
Some would say there’s nothing to see here: it’s good for MPs to keep one foot in the ‘real world’, and it’s all fine as long as they’re doing a conscientious job and their parliamentary work is not suffering. Maybe. But there’s a political dimension which can’t be overlooked. It’s often forgotten that the seeds of Boris Johnson’s downfall were sown not by lockdown parties or questions over parliamentary veracity. His demise began in 2021 when former Tory minister Owen Paterson resigned as an MP rather than face sanctions for allegedly breaking Commons rules over his outside job as a paid consultant. It was Johnson’s attempt to defend and protect Paterson which first created grumblings against his leadership, and so began the sequence of events which led to….well, we all know what happened next.
Four years on, after three Prime Ministers, a new government and a huge churn of MPs – many still with second jobs – it feels like little progress has been made on sorting out this thorny issue. That needs to change.
Peter Heaton-Jones.
Peter Heaton-Jones served as MP for North Devon 2015-19. He was PPS to the Department for Work & Pensions and Lord Chancellor.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.