THE new Conservative Member of Parliament for South Swindon has stated on his website that he does not intend to work as a barrister now that his employment has shifted to the House of Commons.

Yet he still states that he will work as a judge "for no more than 15 days in any year." It also states that such work would only occupy only "a few days a year." Clearly, "up to" could mean one or two days. But the notion of "a few days" does not normally include more than a fortnight.

Lest there be claims that such work is to "keep in touch with the real world" or some such, it must surely be right for South Swindon voters to question whether they have got a full-time MP. I am sure that those in other areas of the country who in the past have raked in vast boardroom and consultancy fees while supposedly being an MP would have said much the same.

The work of most local government councillors - let alone Westminster politicians - in my personal experience involves coming face to face with the real world, via meeting people with very real problems (in their own homes in some cases).

Surely one of the things that so ignited public anger about MPs' expenses was the feeling that electors were not getting full value from some of them. In the 'real world' people in employment usually end up having to take annual leave to do other work, however meritorious that other activity might be and however flexible the working arrangements. So is it the intention to do this extra-Parliamentary work using up whatever annual leave is available as an MP?

I am not suggesting that being a judge is not a public service. I am suggesting that the appearance of having two jobs does little to inspire confidence that the 'Change' agenda promised by the Conservative Party means anything other than one rule for them and another for the rest. As the Conservative Party 2010 General Election manifesto said, "much, much more is needed to clean up our politics and restore public trust."

GERAINT DAY

Southampton Street

Swindon