THE recent furore over MPs’ expenses has once more thrown the spotlight on the issue of what our politicians are paid.

It has become clear that many MPs, and ministers, have taken the view that, with their salaries not being overly generous, the allowances system should be used to top up their earnings.

This has clearly been going on for years. Greater transparency over these allowances has provided the fuel for the fire of the recent revelations about the more dubious claims.

Certainly, some examples involving claims for the second home allowance stink. But the majority are perfectly acceptable.

How can MPs operate effectively in their constituencies and their place of work in Westminster without two homes, especially when the distance between the two is substantial?

The essence of the argument lies in the level of the basic MP’s salary. £60,600 per year may sound a lot to some but is not for what we should expect of a Member of Parliament.

And what exactly is that? An excellent speaker, a top level negotiator, a fine intellect capable of complex analysis – these are qualities that command salaries far in excess of £60k.

The danger is that if we do not pay MPs and other politicians salaries commensurate with how we expect them to perform, we will permanently devalue politics and politicians.

An example of getting what you pay for.