---

Legislative Process

The schools in my part of the world were on holiday during one of those weeks, which answers my hon. Friend’s question fairly definitively. Moreover, I am not sure whether we were given that extra week in the second year. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), I think that it was taken away from us then. And, of course, House business has a habit of crowding in. I am talking more about the principle of September sittings. The subject of Members’ postage and communications has exercised the Modernisation Committee for some time. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South—he is not present now, but I said that I would mention this—made some rather acerbic comments. I am not surprised, because his views are known, and the figures show him to be one of the lower users of the Members’ postage budget. He has been in this place for a long time and I have huge respect for him, but those who have been here for a long time should not so readily dismiss the enthusiastic and conscientious way in which many Members elected from 1992 onwards have chosen to go about their business. There is no rule book and no job description, and we must discover for ourselves how best to represent our constituents. My postage budget is quite low this year; it has been higher in previous years. I agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples). There is no direct correlation between the amount that a Member spends on postage and his or her eventual electoral result. The fact remains, however, that huge issues sometimes blow up in our constituencies. In an intervention earlier, I mentioned the closure of Ashford hospital, which affects the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). He presented a petition with 25,000 signatures; the closure was a huge issue in his constituency. Because there was no postage cap, he could legitimately write to every one of the constituents who had presented him with the petition. I too have carried out mass mailings to petitioners on important subjects. It all depends what is blowing up on the patch at any one time, but the fact remains that if Mr. Speaker chooses—as he has the right to—to impose a cap on our postage and establish a finite budget, when problems explode in constituencies, Members on both sides of the House will not have the wherewithal to do the job that they want to do in the way they want to do it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South said that he accepted the case for circulation of Members’ surgery cards and contact details. Hardly anyone would argue with that, but how on earth would we fund the production of surgery cards and contact details if they were to be distributed to every elector within our present budgets? As I said earlier, many of us are topping up those budgets from our own pockets. In June 2004, the Modernisation Committee produced a unanimous report entitled ““Connecting Parliament with the Public””. It was informed by a questionnaire sent to all Members covering the rules relating to the use of prepaid envelopes and direct mail. As MPs cannot communicate with constituents on matters on which they themselves are statutory consultees—I have mentioned the closure of post offices—nor write to their constituents on matters before Parliament, nor consult them about the implementation of legislation and its effect on their lives and communities, it is important to reflect, and to argue the case for amending the current House rules. Members’ responses to the questionnaire circulated by the Modernisation Committee were instructive. MPs wanted a revision of the rules on unsolicited mail, particularly to inform constituents in a given area about a local issue, such as a planning matter. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) referred to that topic, and I agree that the rules are confusing. Members were asked in what way MPs’ ability to communicate with constituents could be improved. Some sought better facilities for e-consultations, and referred to the use of websites and further electronic media. Asked whether the incidental expenses provision—the IEP—was sufficient to meet the needs associated with dealing with casework, Members overwhelmingly said no. In response to the survey, the Modernisation Committee report stated:"““Nearly half of Members thought that the rules on mailings were not sufficiently clear.””" It is important to remember that this was an all-party report. It continued:"““Circulars include the annual and Parliamentary Reports which are now produced by many Members but they can also include ‘standard letters’ which are in routine use by many Members, cards listing dates and locations of surgeries and other non-partisan material. It may on occasion be appropriate to distribute these items more widely, rather than only sending them in response to constituents’ letters.””" It is absurd that we, as elected Members of Parliament and full-time politicians—well, most of us are full-time politicians—are more disadvantaged than elected councillors. In Battle ward in my constituency, we have a huge new Tesco development. It will radically change the Oxford road in Reading. Many local shopkeepers are worried about whether they will be put out of business, and many local residents are worried about what it will mean for traffic flows, school places and goodness knows what else. My colleague, councillor Tony Jones, can quite legitimately mail out a questionnaire to constituents of the area through the members’ services of Reading borough council. But I, as their Member of Parliament, cannot do so, because that would be unsolicited mailing. However, if, in response to a councillor—a part-time politician—my constituents raise a petition and write to me, I can then legitimately write back to them. We have an unclear situation, and this issue needs to be resolved. I believe that the rules on prohibiting campaigning, fundraising or business correspondence should be confirmed and clarified. The rules on unsolicited mail should be clarified and amended to ensure that non-partisan mailings can be undertaken by MPs, to report on their own activities and to consult with constituents on matters before the House and on the implementation of legislation passed or pertinent local issues. The Modernisation Committee conclusions were supported by the Hansard Society. It said:"““Voters continue to respect their local MPs and much of the effective communication of what Parliament does, especially at the local level and in the local media…The level of informed, transparent and engaged democracy that any citizen of the 21st century has a right to expect is, of necessity, comparatively expensive. Cut-price democracy will never represent much of a bargain.””" I suggest that those Members opposing the MPs communication allowance, which will have the effect of limiting the activities of some of our high spenders, are supporting a cut-price democracy. Finally, I hope that Members will be consistent. I do not expect Members who vote against the MPs’ communications allowance in the Lobbies tonight to claim it next year. It is right and proper that we are all under extensive parliamentary scrutiny: many of us will be watching.