I would like to say at the outset that I agree with most people that the levels of expenses claims made by certain MPs are immoral, even if they are legal.

In the furore, however, there is a risk that we may forget that the reason behind expense claims and salaries was to allow ordinary people to stand for election in the first place.

Prior to this, election to Parliament depended on having sufficient wealth to be able to afford the campaign and to live independently without a wage. Do we want to go back to a time when only the wealthy reach Westminster and by default govern us? I would rather pay MPs a decent wage and reasonable expenses if this is the only way we can have equal and fair representation in London.

It cannot be beyond our ingenuity to devise a fair and equitable system that would allow an MP to live and work in one of the most expensive cities in the world and still retain contact with their constituency members.

For example, is it entirely necessary for the MP to own his or her home in both London and their constituency? Would it be possible to change the requirement that an MP has to live in the area they represent? I agree that face-to-face contact is an ideal at constituency level, but do we have to provide them with a house there as well?

If the country has to buy an MP somewhere to live, why should not that property revert to the country when the MP loses their seat? The country could then benefit from our investment and not the outgoing MP.

Maybe I’m naïve but I would hate to see the good parts of our democratic system thrown out with the bad parts.

Brian Nicholls, Arlington Close, Kingswinford.