Sir, The Derek Conway affair raises, yet again, the more fundamental issue of MPs’ remuneration in total (report, Jan 30, and letter, Jan 30).

The present arrangements were set up when gentlemen members had a number of sources of income and representing the electorate was a part-time post. Those days are, quite rightly, long gone and the need now is to create an environment in which those who create our laws and taxes should live by them.

While MPs’ pay has increased roughly in line with inflation, or a bit ahead, their “expenses” have ballooned out of all proportion and cover many things not available to us, the common herd. Over the same period the Revenue & Customs has clamped down on middle and upper management benefits leading to a huge increase in normal employees’ effective tax rates.

MPs are there to represent our interests and should live within the world they create.

Colin Fuller
Stafford

Sir, Your readers may think that Alice Miles (“Outrageous jobs for the boys (and wife)”, Jan 30) is a little over the top in being so apoplectic about the practice of MPs employing their relations as secretaries or researchers. As has been pointed out, generally speaking such people do a devoted and good job. The public trusts MPs, of whichever party, not to abuse their position, and it is to the credit of the system that when such abuse becomes apparent — as in the lamentable case of Mr Conway — there is immediate revulsion on the part of the abuser’s own peers.

Robert Rhodes, QC
London WC2

Sir, The House of Commons could redeem itself by abolishing the system whereby MPs act as employers of their staff. MPs should be both paid and resourced well. Secretaries and researchers should be recruited and employed centrally by the House of Commons authorities, and allocated to MPs on the basis of need, paid from a Commons budget. At a stroke, employing family members in “non-jobs” would be rendered impossible. Constituency secretaries would be employed and paid for by constituency parties: they do party political work and should not be paid for out of taxpayers’ funds. And because their staff’s salaries would no longer be part of MPs’ “expenses” we would hear a lot less about what each MP costs us.

Colin Forbes
Cirencester, Glos

Sir, It is absurd that the employment of staff in Parliament is still stuck in the Victorian age. It is high time it was professionalised in the way that is taken for granted in local government. This wouldn’t stop MPs from being able to pick and choose their teams, but it would force them to do it under fairer criteria, would prevent abuse and ensure staff members receive a basic level of support and employee protection.

Peter Facey
Director, Unlock Democracy
London N1

Sir, I am the treasurer and a trustee of our local Citizens Advice Bureau. Our constitution dictates that we, the trustees, must not allow our families and friends to receive any financial benefit from the charity if that benefit could be seen to arise from our position as trustees.

This is such a simple rule that I am surprised that it is not a requirement for others in public service, such as MPs.

James Dawson
Cheltenham

Sir, If I was David Cameron I would not have withdrawn the whip from Derek Conway. I would have applied it.

Stephen Phillips
Wrexham

Explore Letters

• Feedback