Mary Reid

Local councillors must, by law, live (or have a business interest) in the borough, district or county that they represent. In fact, they cannot even stand as a candidate unless they meet the residency criterion. That rule does not apply to Members of Parliament, hence the row over Labour minister Tony McNulty's expenses.

In my view, there should be an expectation that MPs should live in their constituencies. If an MP chooses, for whatever good reason, not to live in the constituency, then that is a matter for his or her constituents and the local party. But the public purse should not have to pay for a second home in the constituency.

I think many of us were surprised to discover that Tony McNulty's expenses claim for just that was considered acceptable under the Additional Costs Allowance. Even he thought it was morally questionable and stopped claiming a few months ago.

The second homes allowance exists for one very good reason. MPs have to spend Monday to Thursday in Westminster when Parliament is sitting. Most constituencies are not within commuting distance of London, so it is reasonable for MPs to be covered for the expense of accommodation in London.  And reasonable should extend to a modest flat or house with maybe sufficient room for the family to visit on occasions.

Now you can rent a modern two bedroom flat close to Surbiton Station for between £1000 and £1500 per month, and maybe that should be the benchmark.

We know how easy it is to commute into Westminster from Surbiton - our own MP, Edward Davey, does it regularly. He, of course, lives in the constituency and wouldn't dream of claiming a second homes allowance, even though he would be entitled to one.

The second homes rules need to be revised. As citizens we expect our taxes to pay for MPs to be able to do their work effectively. We do not expect to pay extra allowances for living expenses that the rest of us pay for out of our earned income.