THE late great Peter Cook’s stock-intrade was the portrayal of upper-class eccentrics. One of his creations, I remember, was a judge who meted out summary justice by shooting defendants in the dock and who refuted the old saying about “one law for the rich and one for the poor”.

There were several laws for the rich, said the judge, most of them very lenient. Best of all, they had enough money to choose which ones to obey.

I’m laughing as I write this, not just because I’m thinking about Peter Cook, but also at some of our MPs, who returned this week from their ample summer break, refreshed, ready for the fight and seemingly unrepentant about the expenses scandal. They, too, still think they can choose which rules to obey.

Amid the huffing and puffing – make no mistake, anyone who wants to survive at the polls next year will cough up – it was the silence on two matters that I found significant.

The first was from the Metropolitan Police over possible prosecutions for fraudulent activity.

I have an interest in this issue as I raised it with the Commissioner. It is something I will be following up, as I believe there is ample evidence to warrant an investigation.

The second is the silence of most MPs, who haven’t exactly been queuing up for the cameras waving letters from Sir Thomas Legg giving them the all-clear, so it’s reasonable to assume most are liable for some repayment.

One who isn’t is Middlesbrough MP Sir Stuart Bell, who has been in the thick of the controversy and as a result has had to bear some pretty unfair criticism in the media. What he has done is to spell out the choices facing MPs and the likely consequences if they take them. I don’t think he has “encouraged” anyone to challenge the Legg recommendations.

Sadly, some need little encouragement.

Sunderland North MP Bill Etherington’s comments, that he would rather go to court than repay money claimed in accordance with the rules, show that some members still have not grasped the depth of public anger.

A few weeks back, I said that a good public servant is more than a walking talking rule book. They have to exercise discretion and judgement. The rules by which MPs played were flawed – that is why they are being fundamentally revised. If you had to sum up the message to MPs from their constituents it would be: “We expected better of you.”

This is their last chance to show that they recognise that the well-paid, prestigious and, I accept, onerous job of being an MP is about more than just following the rule book.

The party leaders are desperate to draw a line under it. They recognise the make-orbreak nature of this issue. They will get a chance next year, when the House of Commons will be a very different place – and I am not talking about who will be in government.

So far, 108 MPs have stated they are standing down at the next General Election. More are sure to follow. The new House could contain the highest proportion of new members for some time. It presents us with the opportunity for a fresh start, binding rules on conduct and expenses that are fit for a 21st Century democracy, not a Victorian gents’ club; a clearly defined contract between MPs and their constituents based on value-for-money and trust.

There will never be a better opportunity to do this. In fact, there won’t be another one.

If people are let down again, they will opt out of the democratic process in droves. That, as I have said here before, will be no laughing matter.