AN Army, it is said, marches on its stomach. And maybe hearty lunches were the real reason behind Britain's battalion of MPs voting this week on the contentious issue of what time they should turn up to work and what time they are allowed home.

A two-year trial of "family-friendly" sitting has seen the Commons opening for businesses at 11.30am, instead of 2.30pm, from Tuesday to Thursday, and closing at 7pm, instead of 10pm.

The change has been extremely popular with most women MPs and south-eastern MPs, who can head back to their families and enjoy their evenings at home.

But 'traditionalists' - squarely opposed to Tony Blair's band of

'modernisers' - reckon the new set-up gives them little opportunity to meet constituents during the day and squeezes out time for case-work.

And they say the new hours play havoc with MPs who hold seats some distance from Westminster. Many have complained they are left facing a congested timetable during the day.

Tory front-bencher Anne McIntosh, who represents Vale of York, highlighted this problem during correspondence with Leader of the Commons Peter Hain. She said: "The fact that the House now meets in the mornings means that MPs have little time to read and process constituency and other correspondence.

"The new hours also mean there is only a short space of time during the working day within which to meet outside interest groups and constituents.

"I now find it impossible to return to my constituency during the week to attend meetings, no matter how urgent, due to the need to be in the House all week."

But another Conservative front-bencher, Julian Lewis, might have given away the real reason some corpulent MPs might want a return to the old hours, which saw debates late into the night.

He said: "We are being forced to choose between lunch and listening to speeches. With the new hours, people have had to choose constantly between starvation and participation at lunchtime."

As it was, MPs voted by 292 to 225 for a compromise: agreeing to start at 2.30pm on Tuesdays and an hour earlier - at 10.30am - on Thursdays.

And this is about right. How would it look if Labour, while gearing up for an election campaign on the theme of modernisation, went back to Commons hours devised by the Victorians?

The old hours allowed part-time MPs, invariably Tories, to earn fortunes in the City in the mornings, before topping up their incomes voting through the nation's laws later in the day - after a few whiskies. It has even been suggested that a return to late sittings would require breathalysers in the division lobbies, to prevent MPs voting half-drunk.

That, I think, was a joke.

Meanwhile, sneaking along behind the vote on MPs hours was one on car mileage allowances.

Two months ago, politicians voted to end sky-high car allowances of 57.7p a mile - twice the AA's estimate of the cost of wear and tear.

Instead, they agreed to cut the rate to 40p for each of the first 10,000 miles and 25p after that, bringing the mileage rate into line with the Inland Revenue-approved rate in April.

But this week some MPs risked accusations of greed by trying to delay the introduction of new rates for five years.

Some MPs had complained to Speaker Michael Martin that they were set to suffer a dramatic dip in their overall income.

The mileage cut, while still leaving the rate way above the AA's estimate of wear and tear at 27p a mile, would cost an MP driving 20,000 miles a year about £3,000. Some would lose £10,000 a year, it was estimated.

In a rare display of backbench muscle, the Government-supported motion fell by 249 votes to 111.

One does have sympathy with MPs such as Scarborough's Lawrie Quinn, proud owner of England's biggest constituency, who backed the cut despite having to drive thousands of miles each month to fulfil his duties.

But by claiming a mileage rate way above the one judged sufficient by financial and motoring organisations, MPs were pocketing cash maybe they didn't deserve.

Food for thought, indeed.

Updated: 09:14 Friday, January 28, 2005