MPs are not slaves.

The Government is proposing to force MPs to reveal not only the extent of their paid outside interests, who employs them and how much they are paid, but also how many hours are worked to secure that remuneration.

It is right that MPs should have to publicise how much they are paid and by whom in order to ensure there is not a conflict of interests and that they do not use their position to influence policy to the benefit of their employers.

However, I am less sure about whether they should have to reveal how many hours they have to work to earn their dosh. Surely that is between them and their employer.

Labour MP Frank Field has said that he will refuse to divulge details of the hours that he spends on his outside interests and has indicated that he would be willing to go to prison rather than be subjugated by a dictatorial Executive. He has a point.

I wonder how many other MPs will follow Mr Field’s lead and cock-a-snook at those ministers, led by the dreadful Harriet Harman, who want to prevent their colleagues from having outside interests?

Ms Harman’s motive is clearly party political; since the majority of MPs who have second incomes sit on the Conservative benches. The Government hopes to replicate the recent parliamentary expenses scandal; but with Tories taking most of the flak this time.

There is a powerful argument for encouraging MPs to pursue other paid interests, rather than the reverse. The notion that it is somehow wrong for MPs to receive a second income is based on the politics of envy and is quite illogical.

Critics say that MPs should not have second jobs. That would be true if we were talking about moonlighting for 30 or 40 hours a week. In fact most of the additional income derived from outside interests is reward for just a few hours work per month.

Aaaah! I hear you cry. But if a company is willing to pay thousands of pounds for a few hours work, they must be doing it for a reason. Of course they are! Appointing the right MP to your board as an executive director not only adds a certain gravitas to your company, but also provides expertise and a wide spectrum of knowledge, particularly if the MP had business experience before being elected.

And what about those MPs who derive their second income from journalism or after dinner speaking. Should they be banned from this activity? Of course not! MPs have as much right as everybody else to do what they like with their time. As Mr Field pointed out; they are not slaves.

Could anybody really accuse the likes of Frank Field, Ken Clarke or William Hague of being anything other than outstanding parliamentarians? Again no, and yet all three earn money from outside interests.

The whole opposition to paid outside interests is illogical because nobody is suggesting that MPs should be prevented from taking up unpaid positions outside Parliament. Many MPs sit on the boards of charities, sports groups and other voluntary organisations and that is considered a good thing; so why the fuss about MPs retaining links with their previous jobs?

The bottom line is that what MPs do in their free time is their business. If their activities, whether paid or unpaid, affect their ability to properly represent their constituents then they should be kicked out at the next available General Election.