MPs' expenses

And the “I’ve done nothing wrong” plea is such an insult as to be mind-boggling. I don’t know which I found more insulting – the £600 for hanging baskets or the pathetic £2.50 for Kit Kats.

Do they pay for anything from their large salaries?

On BBC TV’s Newsnight programme, Middlesbrough MP Sir Stuart Bell, in mitigation, amazingly pointed out that journalists were even worse, apparently feeling that was sufficient excuse to forgive MPs.

Does that mean that MPs will now flock to be journalists as the pickings are easier?

One point he seems to have missed in that strange defence – the taxpayer doesn’t foot the journalists’ expenses.

As pensioners who saved for their independence by their own efforts get no benefits and still pay tax, my husband and I wonder if Sir Stuart can explain to our satisfaction why we should pay for MPs’ TVs, bath plugs and food?

We pay for all that ourselves from a much smaller pot than MPs command. Shame on them all. Addressing each other as “The Honourable Member” is the biggest irony of all.

Mrs S Harnby, Stockton.

WHAT is shocking and offensive about this episode is that they are claiming for things which the ordinary people of this country, pay for out of our income.

They should do the same and not expect taxpayers to foot the bill. While they are feathering their own nests, people are losing their jobs and homes.

The person who revealed this should have our eternal gratitude.

What on earth have the MPs between their ears to even think that they could get away with this – or don’t they care? The message coming over loud and clear is that they are selfish, extremely greedy and unworthy of our trust and support. Such behaviour should have no place in our society.

The only way to sort out this mess is to have an independent body to decide what MPs can and cannot claim, MPs to regularly report to their constituents on what they are spending our money on so there is transparency and accountability, and also a General Election at the earliest opportunity so that the voters can pass judgement on the behaviour of the current lot.

Alan Macnab, Darlington.

WHEN are our “Right Honourable” MPs going to start living in the real world and realise that the sentence “I did not break the rules” cuts no ice with the public?

It seems that most MPs today have forgotten the word “honourable”. Why should they get public money to furnish their homes and pay for their mortgages and all the other expenses? What is their £60,000-plus salary for?

Most people have to live off what they earn, so why should MPs be any different? It is time to stop the culture of “snouts in the trough”.

Watching our elected representatives squirm as they try to justify their “bending” of the rules must seem ridiculous to the rest of the world.

We know there is an election coming in the not-too-distant future. I will vote for the party with a manifesto pledge to completely revolutionise the expenses culture so it is both transparent and accountable.

MPs should live within their means and perhaps they would then realise a little more how their constituents live.

John A Redman, Spennymoor.

SO, some of our MPs of all parties who have, at one time or another, employed their children as assistants and made the finance available for their further education, paid relatives as cleaners, paid forty grand a year to a spouse to lick stamps and post letters (this allows time for watching pornographic videos at the taxpayers’ expense), and rented out their second and third homes while claiming thousands of pounds for accommodation in London, have finally been caught with their fingers in the till.

The Government is seeking out the whistleblower. I assume it is to award him an OBE for services rendered? Either that, or see him receive a lifetime’s incarceration for blowing the gaff. Not to worry, though, everything will be put to rights; the £10 for renting the porno videos is going to be paid back.

I hope that a collective decision can be obtained at the next General Election – sufficient to oust every MP who has milked the system. I do see a problem there, though; we may be left without an alternative.

Ray Liversidge, Billingham.

IT matters not if the reference is to social security benefits, MPs’ expenses or the perks given to stockbrokers, bankers and the heads of big business. Just because a type of benefit system is flawed, it is never morally right to exploit those flaws.

We each have a conscious which tells us the difference between what is right and what is wrong which, through our intelligence and morals, guide our words, motives and actions.

But if MPs require a rule book to tell them the what is right and what is wrong, then they’ve lost that which is vital for any form of leadership.

Reforming the way in which MPs’ expenses are paid won’t restore public confidence in the Parliamentary system; that stems from trusting those in power. The only way confidence can be restored is for those MPs concerned to stand down and be replaced, via an election, by those who aren’t tainted by scandal and sleaze.

CT Riley, Spennymoor.

WE are all indignant over the misuse of the expenses system by our MPs. However, I would like to ask those who are making all the noise a few questions.

Have you ever overestimated on an insurance claim? Have you ever left work ten minutes early?

Have you ever charged mileage when you travelled in a friend’s car? Have you ever used the works’ telephone without paying for your call? Have you ever helped yourself to property belonging to the firm you work for?

Well, let me leave you with this thought: “Let him who be without sin cast the first stone.”

Jennifer Moore, Bishop Auckland.

I FIND it hard to believe that MPs have been caught with their noses in the trough, claiming more than £93m in expenses for garden furniture, etc, and yet Colin Mortimer (HAS, May 11) is objecting to a trial of free school meals in parts of Durham because it will cost the council a contribution of £4m.

I would much rather my council tax went on providing free school meals than lining the pockets of greedy politicians.

When will people realise that it is the ruling classes, and not the working classes, that are bleeding the country dry?

David Lowdon, Sunnybrow, Crook, Co Durham.

THE expenses we should be looking at are those of the Euro MPs.

You will probably find their salaries, plus expenses, are almost £400,000 – and why do we need so many?

It’s the same with our MPs. We are a small country, so why do we need 640-plus MPs?

No wonder we are in a credit crunch, paying out all this money to people who seem to do very little apart from act like schoolchildren during Prime Minister’s Questions on a Wednesday.

JM Gowland, Heighington, near Darlington.

I HAVE no sympathy with MPs who are embarrassed over the expenses issue because there has been obviously a culture of claiming in accordance with what would be allowed through a lax system rather than what is reasonable and socially responsible.

I hope the public does all it can to make sure candidates at the next General Election are questioned and give acceptable answers before they get a vote.

The trouble is that voting is based on lifelong loyalties to party, and many will get elected who would not pass muster in a fully accountable system.

Geoffrey Bulmer, Billingham.

RE your report, “Baird blasts the Telegraph” (Echo, May 11). Why has The Northern Echo not asked Redcar Labour MP Vera Baird the obvious question: why did she think the taxpayers should pay for her decorations at Christmas?

Allowing her to say she had not been paid the money amounts to poor journalism, in my opinion, because she tried to be paid, surely, by the act of submitting the claim.

Martin Flanagan, Catterick Garrison.

IN light of the shameful events concerning MPs’ expenses, is it not ironic that they refer to each other as “the Honourable member” or even “the Right Honourable member”?

Our learned friends (should it be learned fiends?) have learned themselves how to fill their pockets.

What makes it so sickening for me is their arrogance when assuring us they have stayed within the rules.

Dennis Parkinson, Trimdon Village, Co Durham.

IT has become clear why the Speaker of the House of Commons, Labour MP Michael Martin, spent £200,000 of public money in his attempt to prevent the taxpayer finding out the extent of the scandalous misappropriation of public funds.

The fact that none of these expenses claims are illegal only shows that the system itself is corrupt. If these suspect claims really are “within the rules”, then the rules have to change… Des More, Darlington.