A BRAVE new world came to Westminster this week.

Gone were the late starts and sittings until the middle of the night. In came new, "family friendly" hours - with MPs even making it into the main chamber of the House of Commons at 9.30am on Thursdays and 11.30am on Tuesdays and Wednesdays.

But approval was less than universal among rank-and-file MPs and their masters - the party Whips.

The headache for the whips concerns what the MPs will do with their evenings, now they will be free from their control by 7pm.

They were happy for their troops to visit the many restaurants and bars around Westminster and get - in some cases - drunk as Lords.

But the point was exactly that. They were in Westminster, safe from the eyes of the outside world and London's many drinking dens and fleshpots.

In the old world, the worst the whips faced was having to push a slurring MP through the right division lobby. Now the worst-case scenario is a tabloid picture of plastered politician stumbling out of a Soho dive.

This, however, is extremely unlikely and paints an unfair picture of our many hard-working and earnest elected representatives.

So it is the concerns of the MPs themselves which are most worthy of note.

They are not - with the exception of a few long-in-the-tooth members - afraid of modernisation.

They just do not think the new sitting times are practical, or will benefit very many of their number.

A significant justification for the reforms was to attract more women MPs, as the early finishes mean they will be able to spend more time with their families.

But this really only applies in the London commuter belt, because it is not practical to travel to and from home in York for example.

There are also fears it will make it impossible for backbenchers, a vital cog in the parliamentary machine, to scrutinise the Government properly.

The old system had a logic. Select and standing committees, along with Westminster Hall - the second chamber of the Commons - met in the morning. At 2.30pm, most of these came to an end and the focus switched to the main chamber.

Now, everything happens at the same time - forcing MPs to make a choice between the two.

What happens, for example, if you are down to ask a question to the Transport Secretary in the Commons at the same time as you are supposed to be giving the Home Secretary a rough ride on one of his appearances in front of the Home Affairs select committee?

Something has to give and there are even rumblings this may be the underlying reason for changing a system which has, after all, worked perfectly well since the 18th century.

Robin Cook, who masterminded the reforms, would doubtless argue Parliament should be doing its business at the same time as the rest of Britain - rather than at night.

And there are certainly benefits to Ministers making important statements to the Commons at lunchtime, rather than 3.30pm or later.

But York's Hugh Bayley sums up the mood nicely. He said: "There are a lot of cold feet. As an MP whose home is a long way from London, I will not get back any earlier and I will also have a problem with Committees.

"Nobody is defending late nights until two or three in the morning - but it remains to be seen whether the committees will work in a way which allows us to be in the chamber when the need arises."

Updated: 12:27 Friday, January 10, 2003