Charles Walker calls for more time for back-benchers to have adjournment debates to hold Ministers to account and does not see any need for an increase in MPs' communications allowances.

4.49 pm

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). Not only has he given a fabulous rendition of his views-some of which I agree with, and others I disagree with-but he has enabled me to catch my first 20 lb carp, so I have a lot of time for him.

I am one of those dreadful Members of Parliament who communicate with their constituents via annual and bi-annual reports. I see nothing wrong with my constituents knowing what I am doing in their name. It is important for them to know that their MP is not only working in the House of Commons, but is around and about in the constituency meeting the people who matter to them-those who provide the many public and charitable services that go on in Broxbourne.

I am also pleased to say that I have something in common with the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore). I, too, am the hardest working Member of Parliament in my constituency. I am the only Member of Parliament for Broxbourne, but I am the hardest working one. Indeed, the same goes for all 645 of us: we are all the hardest working MPs in our constituencies.

We cannot have a total free-for-all on allowances. In my view, our allowances are very generous. There is the office cost allowance and the staffing allowance, which together total some £108,000. Moreover, we are allowed to rob Peter to pay Paul-we can take money out of our staffing allowance and put it into the office cost allowance, for example, so there is some flexibility. I am very concerned at the idea of having limitless expenditure on postage, without any accountability.

Perhaps one way round the problem is to take an average of all 645 MPs' postage. Such an average would include the highest and the lowest spenders, and might provide an average sum of perhaps £4,000 a year, on which most of us could operate, give or take a little less or a little more. But if we could not, we could always make up the difference from our office cost allowance-it is called managing a budget. We expect people in the public sector and in the NHS to manage a budget, so it is quite ridiculous that we MPs should not apply the same financial rigour to ourselves. I leave those thoughts on office expenditure with the House.

I hate to mention the newspapers, because I share many of the views expressed by the hon. Member for Reading, West in that regard, but I should point out that some newspapers are referring to our getting £10,000 to £17,000 in additional money for postage. I am sure that that is wrong and I hope that it is, because if we are seen to be spending that kind of money, it will bring us into further disrepute with our constituents.

On September sittings, I am broadly in favour of coming back earlier than we do, but I share the concerns expressed by many people. It is ridiculous to come back for two weeks in September, and then to disappear to the seaside for a week in order to attend our party conferences. If we are to come back earlier, let us do so toward the end of September, which is still two weeks earlier than coming back at the beginning of October. Of course, there is an argument-I am not sure that my view is shared by colleagues-for having fixed Parliaments. That way, we could follow the American example and have one conference every four or five years before a general election. However, this is neither the time nor place to discuss that.

It is important that Parliament sit for a couple of weeks longer every year in September, but I do not want to see more legislation in this place because there is far too much legislation. We need to spend more time talking about the things that matter to the people of this country-housing, building on the green belt instead of on brownfield sites, immigration, pensions, the nuclear deterrent-so that our constituents can feed their thoughts to us and we can take a considered view. So please let us have less legislation in this place and a bit more considered discussion of the things that keep our constituents awake at night.

Finally-gosh! I have taken four minutes-I turn to family friendly work practices, which I know many people like. We sit till 10 o'clock on Monday and Tuesday nights but rise at 7.30 on Wednesday, which means that I am at a loose end on Wednesday evenings. I normally end up in a curry house eating things that I should not eat. Could we not use the additional two and a half hours not for whipped business, but for one-line debates, during which we could hold Ministers to account. That might provide more time for Back Benchers to have Adjournment debates and talk-

Mark Lazarowicz: It has been suggested that that time on Wednesday evening could be used to deal with private Members' Bills, which are still dealt with on Fridays. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that is a good suggestion?

Mr. Walker: I do. That is an excellent suggestion. A number of suggestions could be made and the House could take a view, but as I say I do not think that we should have whipped business on a Wednesday evening.

Very finally-the last of the absolute lasts, and I am not sure that this is covered by the motions being debated today-I am concerned about the issue of seniority in this place. I am sure that, when I have been here for 20 years, if my electorate allow me to be here for that long, I will be far less concerned about seniority, because it will play to my favour, but my constituents do not care how long any Member of Parliament has been here. It makes no difference to them. I am the only Member of Parliament they have and there are too many occasions when, sitting in a short debate that may be three hours long, I look at the right hon. Gentleman over there, at the right hon. Gentleman over here and at those leading Select Committees and I realise that I do not have a cat's chance of being called. Therefore, I would like seniority perhaps to take more of a back seat, at least for the next 20 years. Thank you very much for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

4.56 pm

...

OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEBATE

Charles Walker raises concerns about MPs abusing communication allowances in the run-up to general elections.

Mr. Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): It is a matter of striking the right balance. Of course our constituents need to hear from us about what we are doing. Most of us in the House know what is legitimate communication and what taking the Michael is. A few Members, especially in the run-up to the 2005 general election, took the mickey out of allowances.

Mrs. May: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, although at least one of those who took the Michael, as he calls it, in relation to allowances lost their seat, so the voters gave a clear message to that individual.

...

Although, generally in favour, Charles Walker discusses logistical problems in shortening the Summer recess.

Mr. Walker: We could rattle through the party conferences in a week, but all parties want their own week in the sun. The three main parties currently occupy successive weeks in September, but to achieve what the hon. Gentleman wants we would have to persuade them to hold their conferences at the same time. That would be a difficult challenge.

Nick Harvey: I do not think that holding the conferences at the same time would be the solution, but all the parties seem to be making an effort to make them shorter. Therefore, even if they took place consecutively, the period devoted to them could be over more speedily.

| Hansard"