We are living in historical times. The downfall of confidence in the economy is being matched by the downfall of confidence in parliament. The exposure of MPs’ expenses, although a shock by its timing, has not been unexpected. The Freedom of Information Act put through parliament by Labour was inevitably going to lead to a more transparent democracy – the only thing that shocks me more than the timing is that the system wasn’t changed earlier.

Having been campaigning in Yorkshire recently Labour’s core vote stands up, but two issues do come up time and again – immigration and MPs’ expenses. The majority of people I have spoken to understand that an MP with a constituency miles from London needs some place to stay whilst working in parliament. The crucial word, however, is ‘stay’ – not live, but stay in London.

Parliamentary allowances were designed to allow MPs to do their jobs effectively without putting up MPs’ wages. People understand that a second home allowance is not unreasonable – it happens in many other professions – local authorities, industrial contracting and so on under the guise of over night allowances. In addition they understand that a start up allowance for a second property when an MP enters parliament for the first time, as well as a travel allowance, are also necessary. What are not considered acceptable are the expenses claims which have seen come to light recently – pipe repairs under tennis courts and the clearance of a moat.

However, in the haste and headless chicken reaction to the MPs’ expenses exposure, we have seen a threat to the progress which has been made in parliament during the last century. The fundamental progress in question is that more people from humbler backgrounds such as postmen, social workers, and teachers have gone on to become MPs. This has only been possible with an expense system which supports their work in London and in their constituencies. If we tear up most of the expenses because of the court of public opinion today, then the only people who will be able to afford to be MPs will be the already wealthy and future courts of public opinion will not forgive us for that.

So when the prime minister says parliament is like a gentlemen’s club of the 19th century, which it is, then the call for rushed reforms coming from all quarters to cut down on expenses could not only keep it that way but turn it into one.

In conclusion there are two options for expenses. Firstly, keep the second-home allowance, make MPs pay back capital gains and any profits, give MPs a start-up allowance when they enter parliament for the first time and retain the travel allowance. Or secondly, increase MPs pay to around £90,000 and get rid of most of the expenses altogether.