I WAS both mesmerised and horrified by last Thursday’s BBC Panorama sting on Patrick Mercer.

What struck me about the Panorama footage was not just how gullible Patrick was (quite extraordinary for someone with experience of counter-intelligence), but also how gullible he evidently imagined the financial backers of the fictitious enterprise to be.

In my political lifetime there have been three “cash for questions” scandals. In each case the scandal arose because of a journalistic sting – never has anyone been caught for actually operating in that way for a genuine commercial interest. I don’t believe anyone would be foolish enough in reality to pay for such a question to be asked when there are any number of MPs who will gladly submit one for nothing.

The number of parliamentary questions tabled by a member is often used as measure of their productivity and effectiveness (rather silly, in my opinion, but there it is), so MPs are always prepared to ask questions suggested to them, for no charge whatsoever, as many of my constituents, who have written to me over the years with their own suggestions, will attest.

There is also the issue of what one might possibly expect to get from the answer to a parliamentary question that one couldn’t otherwise get from a Google search or, failing that, from an inquiry under the Freedom of Information Act. The rules on the tabling of parliamentary questions state that they may not present information, they may not contain an argument, they may not be pejorative and they may not seek an opinion.

They are a useful tool for politicians to hold governments to account, but they are of little value to anyone else and, if you were prepared to pay for one, then you would have more money than sense.

As for setting up an all party group, or tabling an early day motion (these were the other requests of the fictitious backers in the sting), most MPs regard them as little more than irritating graffiti. There are of course some early day motions that catch the tide of the political mood and spur a government into action, equally there are bound to be some intelligent reports that the occasional all-party group has produced on behalf of worthy causes. For the most part, however, the motions are a complete waste of time and very few of us take much account of them.

The all-party groups are, in effect, clubs for members who share a specific interest. My heart sinks every time a constituent writes to me asking to join yet another one – often to draw attention to a medical condition from which they suffer.

There is an all-party group for every disease known to man with, perhaps, the exception of rigor mortis.

One of the images constantly repeated throughout the Panorama programme was of a reception on the terrace at Westminster where people were quaffing wine and canapés while exchanging business cards.

I spend my life finding excuses to avoid these dismal occasions. Often constituents will write and ask me to accept an invitation to one being hosted by a charity they support, but did the volunteers who went out rattling collection boxes really do it to pay for MPs to be entertained at their expense?

My wife, when she insisted on holding her own charity do at Westminster, put an alternative view to me: that it was a way of rewarding the helpers. Significantly, however, on that occasion all the guests had to buy their own ticket in order to cover the costs.

For all these reasons, even if I lacked integrity and was desperate for the cash, if someone approached me offering to pay me to table a question, early day motion, set up a group or host a reception, alarm bells would surely ring: and I would ask myself: “Could anyone really seriously want to pay me for something of such little value and which can certainly be got free anyway?”