Is anyone not guilty?

There is a great deal of anger in Westminster, although perhaps not matched by that in the constituencies.

So many have contributed to this - the committee under the Speaker who drew up the old regulations which were so vague as to permit almost anything, the chief whips who apparently urged members to make sure they claimed anything they could, and the MPs themselves. The Fees Office clearly allowed themselves to be browbeaten into over generous interpretation of claims, and if they approached senior MPs for guidance, then the MPs concerned are doubly guilty.

There is a collective arrogance, with a few honourable exceptions, an arrogance and an overweening sense of their own importance, and therefore of the high remuneration they should have. Until recently they have been happy to grant themselves subsidised epicurean wining and dining, one of the most generous pension schemes anywhere and allowances with minimal certification.

There is little doubt that in cynically "flipping" their designation of main home they have taken everything they could. In trying to claim large cleaning, gardening, repairs and other household subsidies they have again "tried it on". The plasma TVs, the up-market sound systems, the expensive cutlery and glassware and the superior furniture and beds have allowed them to experience a life style beyond the reach of most who have to pay for it. All these are for their second home, where they spend only part of a week, and represent investment in goods which become their possessions to dispose of as they please.

It is to be hoped that the Kelly Inquiry will recommend a system which stops abuses.

In the meantime they must deal with the errors and mistakes of the past. They cannot just draw a line under it. There is too much anger and disconnect. They have indulged and there must be some sort of reckoning. So far the Legg process has attacked apparent errors and reduced allowable gardening and cleaning expences. It remains to be seen if any other fees will come under closer inspection.

It is intolerable that MPs who receive a good salary and pension, in some cases better than they could earn elsewhere, and who claim in excess of £130,00 on average for all allowances and expenses, should ignore the voters. The latter in many cases are in difficult circumstances - without work, losing savings, homeless and facing higher taxes of all sorts.