I was startled from my sleep this morning to hear the BBC reporting on Epping Forest Conservative MP Eleanor Laing’s second home. Mrs Laing is the latest target of the Daily Telegraph, whose main interest seems to be the profit she made when selling a flat in London which was part funded by her MP’s allowances, and how the income was treated for capital gains tax purpose.

It turns out that the same London flat can be a “primary residence” for tax purposes but a “second home” for the purposes of the Parliamentary Fees Office – which is confusing to say the least.

Mrs Laing points out that she took legal advice which confirmed that no capital gain tax was due and that she has broken no rules. This is not in dispute, but what many of us find troubling is that the Parliamentary rules have historically been so weak that some other MPs have apparently been able to exploit them for personal gain.

It is therefore unfortunate that when Mrs Laing had the opportunity to help clean up the system last July she was one of 21 Conservative MPs (and 146 Labour MPs) who voted against toughening up the expenses rule. The following week my Lib Dem colleague Ann Haigh expressed her disappointment in the Epping Forest Guardian:

“The vast majority of MPs are not corrupt. But so long as they resist having their expenses and allowances subject to robust, external audit, the public can be forgiven for wondering what they have got to hide…I am sure many residents of Epping Forest will be deeply disappointed that Eleanor Laing voted against allowing all MPs’ allowances to be externally audited.”

Some Liberal Democrat MPs have had to face questions about their expenses, but I was pleased to see that none of them voted against the tougher rules. It really is time for the sort of reforms that Nick Clegg has put forward which include:

• Personal additional accommodation expenditure should be restricted to rental agreements (no help with house purchases), utility bills, and council tax.
• Payment of personal accommodation expenditure should be on the basis of the production of bills and rental agreement only.
• Designation of first and second homes should be independently approved to ensure that payments reflect the necessary circumstances of Members in fulfilling their parliamentary duties and value for money to the tax payer.

It’s fundamental to me that while we must fund the costs that MP’s necessarily incur to carry out their functions

Eleanor Laing’s second home arrangements have been the subject of considerable scrutiny and comment in the local press over the last few weeks. I still maintain the view I took when asked for a comment by one of the local journalists (some of which was used).

Many of us who travel to central London each day don’t understand why MPs within easy commuting distance of Westminster should have a second home paid for by the taxpayer with the bonus of any capital appreciation as well. I don’t object to an overnight allowance for when the House of Commons is sitting late, but overall it’s time MPs put their house in order.

What I hadn’t realised at the time was the sheer size of the sums involved or the profits that MPs have been able to make on property with the help of the taxpayer.  I suppose the question that many people will now be asking is whether Mrs Laing should make a gesture similar to the one made by Hazel Blears, who felt obliged to pay back a sum equivalent to the capital gains tax that was not levied on her property profits.