Sir, I would like to know why MPs can have second homes paid for tax free (report, March 14) — as a legitimate business expense — when freelances living in the countryside are unable to claim tax relief for second homes in cities that they need (instead of staying in hotels) to carry out their work.

Richard Nelson
London W1

Sir, I have no objection to MPs being allowed their expenses, or to allowances on improving their second homes being paid by the taxpayer — provided we are reimbursed and benefit from the increase in value when they sell. This must be seen as a form of a shared equity scheme, something the Government is keen to promote.

Tom Tangney
Esher, Surrey

Sir, Surely, the whole controversy could be resolved by the provision of government-owned hotel/apartments where MPs who live too far away to travel home each day could be accommodated, with a travel warrant for trips between them. Also, a government secretariat that could provide all the facilities for secretarial work and research necessary for them to carry out their functions.

Pat New
Upchurch, Kent,

Sir, An examining board that I work for used to allow its examiners to claim £30 per diem for meals when away from home. However, the board was informed by the Revenue that any part of the £30 not used was eligible for income tax and that only the amount actually spent could be claimed. As such, all examiners now have to submit receipts for meals. This I believe holds for all examining boards and I suspect, for all organisations. Perhaps it is time that the Revenue cast its beady eyes on MPs and their meal allowance, or are they a special case?

Paul Ruth,
Lancaster

Sir, I favour MPs having these generous allowances as long as they are extended to those in military family quarters, many of which could do with a new kitchen, bathroom etc. Best of all would be being able to buy a house, with the mortgage paid for by the Government.

It would surely be easier to buy 646 flats in London, owned by the Government and passed from MP to MP. It would not cost any more money, as the Government is paying these costs anyway, but the profits currently go to the MPs. They should also be furnished from the same sources as military family quarters.

The Rev Ralph Barber
Newquay, Cornwall

Sir, The comment today on the “John Lewis” list for MPs seems to focus on kitchens and TVs. Nobody seems to have noticed the “£299.99 max” for an air-conditioning unit. What kind of example is this supposed to be setting as we try to reduce our carbon emissions?

Deborah Lazarus
London, SW15

Sir, How very cruel to place an advert for Selfridges opposite your article on the “John Lewis list”. It would appear that if MPs wish to have the cachet of shopping at Selfridges they will have to settle for a 32in TV, compared to John Lewis’s affordable range of 42in sets to stay beneath the £750 barrier.

At least the advert below the article, for Sharps Bedrooms’ half-price Easter sale gives some consolation.

Paul Kellaway
London, E1

Explore Letters

• Feedback