We don t properly know how we are governed. We know it isn t by the electorate and we easily see today that it isn t by Parliament. The mystery is reflected in the way MPs have been remunerated, which keeps them subordinate. Undoubtedly the government of this country needs reforming, but it is the recent movement away from rationalisation and towards even more obscurity which leaves little room for confidence that the proper reforms will be made. At the least we should stop using this meaningless and completely misplaced word democracy in any connection with the central government of this country.

Henry Percy, London, UK

"held artificially low"?! Massively inflated in terms of what you get in return, more like.

Nobby, London,

Just wait until election time, and local mp's ask for your vote, just say you tell me your expences and Ill think of voting for you. SIMPLE!!!

John, Essex, UK

I hate to seem cynical and although I accept that the £1.7m refurbishment of the Speaker’s official home was necessary, it's an awful lot of money. Were tenders issued for the job? If not, why not? And if so, who had a say in choosing the successful bidder? Was that bidder in any way linked to a member or official of the House of Commons? On what grounds was the final selection made?

Theo Nelson, South Hams,

May we have a specificn detailed and definitive answer as to whether MP's claims have ever been shredded.

brian kelly, Reading, England

MPs are less worried about the addresses of their principal residences being disclosed: it is the locations of their second homes (in London, in the consztituency, or, heaven forbid, in neither) which hey are keen not to have disclosed.

I understand that all Members were informed of the freedom of information regime which would come into play, and the policy the House proposed to take in disposing of records of past claims (the 3-year disposals regime) as long ago as 2003. So none really can excuse themselves if details of their additional cost allowance claims are now made public (as their office cost allowance claims routinely are).

T Gudge, Weybridge,

Mark, London:

I think we would be better off not paying them at all. The rise and rise of the well-remunerated local councillor and Member of Parliament has created a class of ruling elite - people even talk about political dynasties now. We don't need political dynasties - they are undemocratic. Take away the punch bowl and let people return to representing their constituents for the right reasons.

MarkS, Leeds,

Successive governments from Edward Heath onwards have through the inland revenue curtailed what expenses were allowable for employees to a point where today only direct out of pocket expense are allowable. Certainly no monetary gain is permitted as happens with MP's second homes and the level of justifiable expenses is not generous and only reasonable & documented costs are allowed to be claimed for. Any accommodation allowances for private sector workers DO NOT allow for any sort of recompense on ones primary residence when working for extended periods away from home. Many MP's have abused a lax system of expense renumeration to the point of illegality and one wonders just why the inland revenue turns a blind eye to flagrant fraud for monetary gain. Its certainly time for a clamp down but I see no justification in an automatic hike in salary to compensate. Just what part of the word 'expenses' don't MP's understand, as by any definition it's for out of pocket expenses and not salary.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

How on earth can MPs, who have claimed these enormous sums, look their voters in the eye?
How can we trust them with matters of state when
we can't trust them with our hard earned money of which the government takes more money in taxation each year!
I should know as instead of 18% I now have to pay 20% of income tax into the Big Black Hole!
It is truly a disgrace!
I could weep!
I do remember the silly giggle of Diane Abbot ,on the This Week show, when told how much Taxi money
she charged to expenses!!

Enid Shaw, Midhurst, UK

Sadly I fear Michael Portillo will be correct :( all too often in today’s society important issues such as this are highlighted and then forgotten about. Jesting, no doubt we will have a security scare or something to deflect people’s attention.

MPs and so called elected representatives are so far removed from the people for whom they are suppose to serve and they have placed themselves on a somewhat invisible pedestal. This has been pointed out so many times by various people and organisation, but again MPs do not pay attention.

Also, I agree with the points raised by "Richard, London, England"

Phil, Sussex, Sussex

I can understand covering a rent, but covering a mortgage! If I lose my job and cannot pay my mortgage it will be six months before I can claim state aid, and then it will not cover any capital sum. I see no reason why I should finance a bullet proof capital gain for any MP especially as my tax bill is just about to rise as the bottom rate band is removed

Jane Knight, Didcot, UK

Put them in Z list, Armed forces accomodation if they require a place to sleep in london.....................................

Harry B Maskers, leicester, uk

A new era requires new solutions.

Videoconferencing is wisedpread elsewhere - why not for MPs? They can stay in their own constituiencies and join the debate electronically. Suddenly the need for a second home evaporates, and all MPs can attend most if not all discussions.

As a Doctor any gift I recieve must not be worth more than £6, lest it corrupt my ethics. This is apart from the fact I am legally accountable for my actions as well as following strict guidelines on behaviour and actions. Why are MPs not similarly bound if not more so as they help govern the entire country?

Richard, London, England

Insofar as second homes are concerned why can't all MPs be given accommodation near the Houses of Parliament - perhaps a 1 bed flat with mod cons such as WiFi, cooker, fridge, dishwasher etc (they can buy their own TVs) - and when they leave they can simply return the key. The flats could be rent free. Alternatively they could rent accommodation like anyone else who lives away but works in London during the week. Employment of support staff should have the same restrictions as other employment has - i.e., formal interview procedure. I can't see why MPs should not obey the same rules for expenses as any public servant does. As for those making making a capital gain from taxpayers' money - well, either it should be heavily taxed or just returned to the Public Purse.

Dr Ian Burgess, Bristol,

As this money is paid by the taxpayer, then there should be a legal charge registered on the property so that when the property is sold or the person ceases to be a Member of Parliament, then the money is repaid. There are many people in this country who have to commute long distances for the sake of work. Those that cant afford second homes pay in travelling expenses, those that do rightly fund the cost from their own pockets. Its about time MPs realised that they are servants of the taxpayer and not the other way around.

carol, Leicester, UK

It strikes me that MPs do actually get paid too little, and this must be in some part due to the fact that there are 646 of them. It's an expensive assembly. The USA, which is five times the size, has only 535 members of Congress, and no Lords, which also cost money. Do we really need so many representatives? Wouldn't we be better off, as the LibDems have suggested, having many fewer MPs who are better paid and really full-time parlimentarians? Once we paid them a reasonable wage they could be held much more accountable.

Mark, London,

The disconnect between politicians and the electorate (that's good one by the way, Mr Portillo, that they are our servants - haha) is now so great that it's no longer about remuneration and expenses, it's a question of whether we need so many of these 'representatives'. With devolution, the passing of more and more powers to Europe, and the quite obvious paramountcy of party loyalty over conscience and commitment to constituents, what is the function of these people? And the need for 630-odd MPs will become even more problematic if any form of PR is introduced at a national level.

Jonathan Spencer, London, UK

This is nothing- wait until we get to look into the sty where the local government have been feeding.

Neil, Liverpool, UK

Was it not recently announced that, under The Speaker's authority, MPs expense claims up until 2005 were to be shredded forthwith? The baring of bosoms would appear to be being as limited as possible.

John C , Berkhamsted, UK

Michael Portillo is right to point out that the Speaker's state apartments are quite different from the Speaker's private home, and that the moment the Speaker leaves office they lose the benefit. This does however rather beat into a cocked hat the complaints about the money spent on the Lord Chancellor's rooms at the other end of Parliament during the time of Lord Irvine. Not even the present Lord Chancellor enjoys the use of them now.

David Boothroyd, London, UK