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.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree with his characterisation. He is right to reference the attack and the subsequent disorder, but also to reference concerns about those who would seek to initiate violent criminality under these particular circumstances. I give him an absolute assurance that we will take these matters incredibly seriously, as I am sure will the police.

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

Rightly, there has been unanimous condemnation of the violence last night in Belfast, as there was of the incident that occurred in north Belfast that precipitated the protests last night. Does the Minister agree that two years ago, following the Southport attacks, similar violence to last night appeared in Northern Ireland? We all condemned that too, and I asked the Deputy First Minister to accompany me on a visit to our local hospital to reassure ethnic minority workers there that we not just condemned the violence against them, but stood shoulder to shoulder with them in opposition to it. However, we need more than just words and people standing shoulder to shoulder. We hope that there will never be a repeat of last night’s violence, but if the Government do not deal with the fundamental underlying problem of the previous night, we will have more nights like that one.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he provides me with the opportunity to make a point that I know he will agree with: Belfast is a truly great city. It is a place with incredible history and extraordinary character, and I believe it is a place of great potential and possibilities with a bright future ahead. That is why it is so tragic to see the kind of criminal disorder that all of us hoped had been consigned to the past. I understand the passion with which he speaks, but I hope he will also understand this Government’s commitment to dealing with what he describes as the fundamental underlying problems. He is right to raise them. Nobody is remotely blind to them, and we completely understand the anger. That is why we are working in the Home Office, and with colleagues right across law enforcement and Government, to ensure that we are making progress on the areas that he references.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman’s argument in relation to the Good Friday agreement. When it comes to the Windsor framework, those who advocated to leave the European Union did not think about the consequences for having two entities and one open border and how we could ensure that goods crossing the border would meet the rules of the respective entity—that is what the Windsor framework seeks to do. The Government are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the EU, which has been widely welcomed by all parties across Northern Ireland.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that, in any marking of the end of violence, a key date is 1994, when the main violence perpetrators, the IRA, finally woke up to the reality that its ranks were riddled with informants and it was running out of options, so it declared a ceasefire, and that was followed by loyalist paramilitaries doing likewise? But civilised society should never applaud or celebrate murderers ceasing to do what they should never have started doing in the first place.

[Hilary Benn]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that there was always an alternative to violence—always. That recognition was finally achieved when the Good Friday agreement was negotiated and signed, and Northern Ireland has seen the benefits since. It shows, as I indicated earlier, that instead of saying no, which happened repeatedly on all sides, when people are finally prepared to compromise in the interests of peace, enormous benefits flow—in this case, to Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. This weekend, I was with Black Country Women’s Aid, celebrating its 40th anniversary, and its staff mentioned how my hon. Friend had been incredibly supportive of them. The first of the three aims of our strategy is to stop violence before it starts, focusing on the prevention that he talks about. We will focus on young people, supporting parents and working with schools to challenge misogyny and promote healthy relationships. We will also engage with industry and take decisive action to safeguard young people by making the UK one of the hardest places for children to access harmful content and misogynistic influence.

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

Will the Minister undertake to consult with the Northern Ireland Justice Minister? Violence against women and girls continues to increase, with another woman killed in the past few days in Northern Ireland, and we need to take positive action to stem this misogynistic abuse of both women and girls.

[Jess Phillips]

The hon. Gentleman highlights another incredibly sad case. Of course, I work with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland—we work very closely with all the devolved Administrations to make sure we are working together to deal with this problem collectively.

Civil Service Pension Scheme: Administration

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered administration of the Civil Service Pension Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful to my colleagues for attending this morning’s debate. After reading many emails from constituents, it is clear that the issue before us today is not just an admin problem. It has caused real worry, stress and financial hardship to people who spent decades serving the public, trusting that their pension would be paid properly and on time. The scale of the problem is now very large and affects people across the country.

Since Capita took over running the scheme on 1 December 2025, the Public and Commercial Services Union has been flooded with complaints. Members report long delays, mixed messages and very poor service. This is happening while there is a large backlog of cases passed on from the previous provider, MyCSP. Thousands of people are now stuck waiting. The result is stress, uncertainty and real financial hardship, which is not acceptable. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. Last week Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to civil servants to admit that the service being provided falls short of what members should expect.

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

A couple of weeks ago at Prime Minister’s questions I raised the issue of a very young civil servant trying to access her pension as she has only months to live. It was an exceptionally difficult and heartrending story, but thankfully, because of the appearance of her case at Prime Minister’s questions, the issue was resolved shortly afterwards. The point that was made then and since is that it should not take raising something at Prime Minister’s questions to get issues resolved. We need to get Capita, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Cabinet Office or whoever to sort the issues out as quickly as possible.

[Lorraine Beavers]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The seriousness of it has been accepted at the highest level. As I was saying, Cat Little, permanent secretary at the Cabinet Office, wrote to the civil servants to admit that the service falls short of what members should expect. That alone should worry us all. We have also seen reports that some former civil servants have been left without any pension income at all because payments have not been made since Capita took over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers). We all owe the hon. Lady a debt for bringing forward this issue, and our constituents would agree.

I have constituents who are close to defaulting on their mortgages without their appropriate payments, and we cannot allow Capita to continue fobbing those people off. I spoke to the Minister before the debate and it is not their fault; it is Capita’s. However, my constituents would say—I hope the Chair will find my language okay—“It is time to kick ass in Capita”. I could say something worse—although I had better not.

[Mr Campbell]

My hon Friend had better not!

[Jim Shannon]

Let me read out an email sent by a lady who worked for almost 50 years in the civil service at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If anyone knows how to work the figures, then this lady does. Yet she is powerless in the face of Capita.

“I joined the Civil Service in September 1977 and retired from it on the 31 December 2025. I worked in the Inland Revenue that then became HMRC. I have not received my lump sum or final details of my pension. I telephoned Capita on the 13 January and after hanging on the line for 2hrs 10 mins (being 12 in the queue) was told by Helen a chaser would be made to processing.

She was unable to let me speak with a manager or processing and confirmed there are issues with logging/registering with the new pensions portal.

I telephoned again today and after hanging on for nearly 5hrs was told by Lilly she would send an escalation today to her manager Adrian. I asked for a call back & whilst Lilly agreed to make this request to her manager she could not guarantee it could be done. I explained I could not get onto the pension portal and she advised the issues with it would not be sorted until March.”

That is the lived experience of a lady who has dedicated almost 50 years of her working life to the civil service—a lady who knew the penalties in place for those who are paid late and who could listen to the extenuating circumstances that someone was going through. I know that the Minister is not responsible but, my goodness Capita needs a throttling.

I have five questions. Why did civil service pensions not postpone the changeover to Capita until the issues with the existing scheme were resolved? When can deadlines for resolving the issues be set? Why was the resolution of the McCloud issues not adequately resourced? When will the remaining contingent decision routes procedures be issued? Will the affordability test be applied to civil service pensions, and if so, when? The affordability test is a clause in the pension scheme allowing it to reduce the pension if it looks like it will become unaffordable. These are the implications of what happens. People can find themselves with a pension that is less than it should have been.

The Government know that the country does not operate without our knowledgeable, hard-working civil servants, but our obligation to them does not end with their final day—it continues. We are failing those who gave so much—and this must end right now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

I know that the scheme has been welcomed at many universities, including Reading. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned on this for a long time. In my constituency, Sussex University was home to the first Erasmus student. When I visited last week, the university was delighted that it will have more students soon. I want to point out, though, that this is not just about universities; it is also about apprenticeships, FE colleges, youth workers and sports professionals. It is a huge opportunity for 100,000 people, so quite why the Conservatives and Reform oppose it is beyond me.

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

The Minister has mentioned apprenticeships. Does he agree that there should be opportunities through the future town funding that the Government have announced? Coleraine and Londonderry, in my area, should enable young people to take advantage of the opportunities and ensure that local employers offer more training and apprenticeships.

[Chris Ward]

As I have just said, this is about apprenticeships as well as universities. The hon. Gentleman should write to me and the Minister for the Cabinet Office about how we can roll this out. It is a UK-wide programme that will benefit all parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister for the Cabinet Office met the devolved Governments yesterday to discuss that and other matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Q9. I have a constituent who, although not yet 30 years old, has just been diagnosed with a terminal illness. She has been told that she has a very short time to live. Because of her condition, she was given a retirement date—she is a civil servant—which was just last week. She has not received notification of any actual pension payment, and she has spent long hours trying to contact Capita. HM Revenue and Customs has claimed that all outstanding documentation was supplied to Capita in November. I have written to the Chancellor, and contacted the MPs’ hotline and Capita, but the issue remains unresolved. Will the Prime Minister, along with the Chancellor, help to get the issue resolved immediately?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising this case, and I am truly sorry to hear about his constituent. If he would not mind following up with the details of the case, I will make sure that it is dealt with urgently on behalf of his constituent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Patrick]

I thank the right hon. Member for the opportunity to champion the growth taking place in Northern Ireland, with exciting work in the creative industries and the tech sector. On the opportunities for secondments and shared learning, I made the offer to the Executive Ministers I met last month that where we can share best practice, knowledge and learning, we should do so. I am happy to take forward other suggestions that the right hon. Member may have.

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

2. What progress he has made in supporting businesses in Northern Ireland that have supply chains in Great Britain.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)]

I have met a range of businesses and representative bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses and the Northern Ireland Business Brexit Working Group, to discuss supply chains and how the Government could improve guidance and support on the Windsor framework. I will continue to take that feedback into account as we respond to recommendations made by Lord Murphy in his report.

[Mr Campbell]

Will the Secretary of State step up his efforts to ensure that there is no disadvantage to companies trading within Northern Ireland? Further to that, he will be aware of the potential threat posed by Chinese-built buses. Given that excellent UK-made zero emission buses are built in Northern Ireland at Wrightbus, will he liaise with the Department for Transport and mayors in Great Britain to ensure that purchases of those buses, which have no security risk, are seen as infinitely preferable to purchasing those made in China?

[Hilary Benn]

I join the hon. Gentleman in drawing attention to the wonderful zero emission buses being produced at Wrightbus, which I have had the pleasure of visiting two or three times. They are brilliant, one sees them on the streets in the rest of the United Kingdom and there is a very good reason to buy UK-made buses from Northern Ireland so that we can see more people travelling on them. That is an option that is open to local authorities.

Windsor Framework: Internal Market Guarantee

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sammy Wilson]

rose—

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

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have only about seven minutes left. I will give way to both Members, but I will have to do so quickly.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Things have improved only marginally, and not at sufficient speed. I suppose that those of us who live in the real world will say that things would have been much worse if Stormont had not been back up and running. However, I will give an example of the issues.

A constituent who visited me just this week said that they had ordered a product from the Natural History Museum, here in the centre of London, but they got this reply:

“Unfortunately, we are currently unable to ship to any EU countries.”

That is a reply from the Natural History Museum in London to a resident of Northern Ireland who was trying to order a product. Is that not an example of how much distance we have yet to travel?

UK-EU Summit

Gregory Campbell Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The principles are: bills down and jobs up, and that is exactly what this deal delivers.

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

The Prime Minister has spent the past hour and a half indicating the benefits that he sees from the deal. Does he recognise that a potentially toxic side effect of the deal is that some on the left of UK politics will see this as the first step towards rowing back on what the people voted for nine years ago, while those on the right of UK politics will see a determination to stop them? Rather than the deal bringing people together, it could therefore cause toxic division.

[The Prime Minister]

We have taken a pragmatic, common-sense approach, with an absolute focus on reducing bills—that is hugely important to people, particularly in a cost of living crisis—and driving up jobs in our economy. Those are the principles that have driven this. I recognise that those at the extremes, on whichever side people want to say that they are on, will never be satisfied, but the country is fed up with nine years-worth of continued discussion, debate and toxic divide. It is time to move on from that and to look forward, not backward, and this deal will help us do that.