IT TOOK 37 YEARS TO GET INTO THIS MESS; WE CAN'T DIG OURSELVES OUT IN DAYS

Published in North Devon Journal on Thu 14th May 2009

Each day brings another chapter in the scandal of MPs' expenses. Having defended my fellow Parliamentarians in recent years, I myself have been astonished at some of the claims which have come to light.

The payments range from serious misuse of thousands of pounds, for example renovating properties and then selling them on, to merely amusing - such as the 88 pence bath plug and the £6.99 toilet brush.

The former are a scandal, whereas the latter are legitimate but trivial. But they meld together in the public mind. I have not - at the time of writing - been turned over by the Telegraph, but all MPs wait apprehensively and, serving on key committees, I expect to be targeted in the next day or two.

I assure everyone that I have not claimed to dredge a moat, pay a butler, repair a tennis court, renovate a property or for naughty movies. Nor have I "flipped" my claim between constituency and London: I've always claimed in London.

But at the "bath plug" end of the scandal I, like any MP selected for attention, can be embarrassed over details. And the public is rightly so outraged that there is a risk they view the trivial as comparable to the scandalous.

Most people understand the need for MPs to run an office, employ staff, have stationery and computers, and travel to London. These are relatively uncontentious. What leaves the public genuinely baffled - and furious - is the workings of the second home allowance.

The history is no justification, but may explain a bit. By the 1970s, politics had become more egalitarian with ordinary people - not just the wealthy - becoming MPs. Many Members could not afford central London accommodation, and sleeping in Commons offices became commonplace - you left your waste bin across your door to warn off the cleaners.

So it was agreed that - like other professions reimbursing people sent away on work - MPs needed accommodation paying. Hotel bills became claimable. As years progressed, spending 36 weeks a year living out of a suitcase in a hotel - taking all your things home weekly on the train - became a bind. And renting a flat for 52 weeks was shown to be cheaper than staying in a hotel for 36.

Then as rents got dearer and flats got grottier and further away, MPs realised that a mortgage on a flat much nearer would be cheaper than renting. So from the mid-80s, mortgage interest was permitted, along - unwisely perhaps - with furnishing and equipping on a par with a rented flat.

My point is that it took 37 years for the Commons to get into this mess. Dramatic change is now undoubtedly needed, but we aren't going to be able to dig ourselves out of the hole in a matter of days.